"When a government can't protect its citizens, it subdues them"

Michael G. Leventhal

“There are two things you don’t want to see being made - sausage and legislation.”

Otto von Bismarck

"How fortunate for governments that people do not think."

Privacy Watch

"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, it's roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement"

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom, It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Government Abuse and Terrorism Blog 

911 Commission Recommends National ID Cards and Armed Checkpoints in America.  Congress begins implimentation

Supreme Court Decides that police can demand identification from anyone and jail them if they don't comply

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554

International DNA Database

DARPA and Total Information Awareness.  The Pentagon and F.B.I Join Forces to Watch Americans

Airlines Monitoring Emotions of Passengers

Americans spying on Americans.  The US Department of Justice TIPS Citizens Watch.

Shadow Government, Marshal Law and Locking Americans out of the Liberty Loop

Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002.  Turning a National Biometric Driver's License into Total Control

Robot cameras that Target Citizens based on Actions and Personality

***

"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering

Remote-Controlled Rats.  A Foretaste of Things to Come

DOJgov.net newswire

May 2, 2002 LONDON - Rats controled by computer at current ranges of up to 500 yards have been announced today.

The remote-controlled "roborats" can be made to run, climb, jump or turn left and right through electrical probes, the width of a hair, implanted in their brains. Control movements  are transmitted from a computer to the rat's brain via a micro radio receiver strapped to its back.  Eventually, the receiver can be made the size of an implantable ID Chip.

One of the electrodes stimulates the "feelgood" center of the rat's brain, to reward proper actions with a "feel good" impulse.  Two other electrodes activate the cerebral regions which process signals for mind control.

In training, a shot of euphoria rewarded the rats for responding correctly, but after that they turned on cue without any need for reward, the researchers said in the scientific journal "Nature."

It's all so simple.  Just like in a sci-fi movie.

FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY REACTS TO ANTI-TERRORISM FAILURES by DRAGGING STATE GOVERNORS INTO THEIR MESS

New 'Emergency Health Powers Act' MEHPA


WASHINGTON, DC Jan 21, 2002 -- A new proposal that would grant governors the power to declare a "bioterrorism emergency" -- then seize property, order public quarantines, and ration food, guns, and alcohol is being proposed.

This proposed legislation, which has been introduced in a dozen states already, gives governors extreme powers, under vaguely defined guidelines.  While designed to combat a possible bioterrorism emergency, it is written so vaguely as to create a hysteria driven denial of property ownership and personal liberty.

The draft Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), written by the Centers for Disease Control, is  superficially designed to help state governments cope with a sudden outbreak of smallpox, anthrax, or other bioterrorism attack. Health experts predict that every state will consider the 40-page model legislation at some point this year.

It would be nice to say that the Devil is in the details, but the problem is its dangerous vaguery.

LEGISLATION SECTIONS OF QUESTIONABLE WISDOM:

* Gives governors the power to declare a public health emergency, without consulting public health officials, the legislature, or the courts.

* Defines infectious disease as ANY "disease caused by a living organism," which "may, or may not, be transmissible from person to person, animal to person, or insect to person." Some health experts say the definition is so broad that it could include the outbreak of a flu or virus, whether real or imagined.

* Permits states to mobilize the "organized militia" to seize control of any private property the governor deems "reasonable and necessary" to cope with the alleged emergency, such as "communication devices, real estate, fuels, food, clothing, and health care facilities."

* Allows the governor to destroy private property alleged to be hazardous to public health, in some cases WITHOUT compensation.

* Empowers the state to "control and restrict alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles."

The first problem with granting governors such awesome powers is that the definition of an "emergency" is so vague.

  According to MEHPA, a public health emergency is "an occurrence or IMMINENT THREAT of an illness or health condition...caused by bioterrorism [editor: without clearly defined criteria for this definition]...that poses a substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities."  Again, this decision can be made by a governor without consulting public health officials, the legislature, or the courts.  If your state passes this legislation, a bioterrorism attack can be defined solely by your governor.

The prestigious Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) warns that under the act, "there is no requirement for scientifically valid assessments, risk:benefit analysis, or judicial or even administrative review." The group's comments on the proposal, along with the text of the model legislation, can be viewed at
http://www.aapsonline.org

MEHPA appears to be a US Government reaction to their past failures.

A primary function of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, is to protect Americans against foreign attack. September 11, 2001 highlighted this government failure in that crucial role through years of "terrorist friendly" corruption, indolence and cover-up in the USDOJ INS (See www.Justice-Denied.net).  It was compounded by the fecklessness of elected officials in spotlighting but not reigning in, years of failure by this agency. 

Congress and US Postal Service Considers "Snooping" Postage Stamps

No Thumbprint, No Rental Car

By Julio Scheeres Wired.com
2:00 a.m. Nov. 21, 2001 PST

When James Glave arrived at Oakland International Airport and went to retrieve the rental car he had reserved over the Internet, he was dismayed to learn that the agency not only required his driver's license and payment information, but also his thumbprint.

The New Mexico-based magazine editor said he found out about the requirement when he walked up to the Dollar Rent A Car counter and noticed a display featuring a drawing of a big thumb making the A-OK sign with the words "Thumbs Up!" printed on it.

The display explained that thumbprints were being collected from customers as part of an effort to reduce fraud and theft, Glave said.

When he refused to fork over his digit, the employee refused to rent him a car.

Your eyeballs, please:

Wired Nov 17, 2001

 About the only thing Sen. Dianne Feinstein likes more than biometric ID devices are hearings devoted to them.

On Wednesday, the California Democrat used her chairmanship of a key Senate subcommittee to convene a hearing on biometric systems -- but invited only government officials and biometric industry representatives to testify. No critics were permitted to speak.

Nobody has a problem with private firms using biometric identifiers such as a retinal scan or a fingerprint to, say, safeguard sensitive computer labs. But when governments start thinking about embedding biometric information into a national ID card or demanding such information from airline passengers, then it raises privacy issues.

Monte Belger, acting deputy administrator of the FAA, said during Wednesday's hearing that "25 airports are using biometrics, but we would like to extend that to all airports.... There is very little used today of these biometric systems at our nation's airports."

Libertarian Party Press Release July 5, 2001

Chilling new survey: Americans want more government censorship of media

WASHINGTON, DC -- The First Amendment is in "intensive care," Libertarians said today, after a new survey found that 46% of Americans think the press has "too much freedom" and a whopping 71% say the government needs to hold the media in check.

"The First Amendment is in trouble," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "If this survey is accurate, then the First Amendment is in intensive care and may be dying -- not of simple indifference, but because of criminal negligence by the American people."

This past week, the New York-based First Amendment Center revealed that a startling number of Americans are willing or eager to give the government more control over speech and the press. Of the 1,102 adults randomly surveyed by telephone across the nation:

* 46% said the press in America has "too much freedom to do what it wants." By contrast, only 36% think there is "too much government censorship."

* 71% think it is somewhat or very important for the government "to hold the media in check."

* 39% agree "the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees." That's up dramatically from just 22% who held that opinion last year.

* 64% disagreed that "people should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to racial groups," with 36% saying there should be laws against such speech.

For a nation founded on the concept of "unalienable rights" and a fierce devotion to free speech, this survey is disturbing, said Dasbach.

"Americans don't seem to understand that free speech is not something you can share with the government," he said. "Either the people have free speech -- and are willing to fervently defend it against all encroachments -- or else politicians have the power to control what we hear, see, and read. There is no middle ground."

Unfortunately, too many Americans appear willing to sacrifice their freedoms to protect themselves against speech they find offensive, said Dasbach.

"Some people appear willing to relinquish free speech because they are offended by vulgar music, obscene photographs on the Internet, violent movies, or lewd dialogue on television," he said. "But that's making a deal with the devil.

"If you give away your rights, politicians will eagerly take them. And once they have that power, politicians won't stop at simply censoring what you find offensive. Eventually, politicians will go after speech that you find indispensable. But by then, it will be too late."

What's the solution? Americans need to renew their traditional commitment to free speech, said Dasbach.

"Don't let the history books record that this was the generation that gave away its First Amendment rights," he said. "Remember: There's only one thing more tragic than a government seizing the rights of its citizens -- and that's citizens willingly forfeiting their rights because they are too apathetic, indifferent, or lazy to keep them.

"And there's only one thing more tragic than letting power-hungry politicians murder the First Amendment -- and that's allowing it to die of criminal neglect."

New Spin: Digital Fingerprint Can Help Identify Net Users

Privacy Times - Posted Sept 1, 2001: For many people, the term "digital fingerprint" conjures images of a biometrically-enabled computer mouse reading the fingerprint of the user's index finger and authorizing that user's access to the computer or any given Web site.

But a Northern Virginia computer-security firm has developed a different concept of the digital fingerprint, one that should hearten those who are searching for bad guys, but raise new questions about anonymity on the Internet.

To Netlogiclab, the digital fingerprint is composed of the different electronic clues that Internet users routinely provide. These include the "mail path," the Internet Service Provider (ISP), the time and day of the communication, and "text data," which entail vocabulary type and text errors.

There is nothing new in these categories. For instance, it is widely known that unless they take countermeasures, net users regularly give away their ISP address when they visit a Web site. Moreover, investigators traditionally have relied on time and day information, which is made simpler by the Internet. The analysis of text data, including writing style and errors, was a key technique in the FBI's search for Unabomber Theodore Kacsyznski.

What's potentially new about Netlogiclab's approach is the consolidation of these and other categories into a rules-based software that can perform automated analyses of massive amounts of Internet communications. Such a system would be used most effectively to identify participants in electronic bulletin boards, chat rooms, Internet Relay Chats, America Online Instant Messenger, as well as e-mail users. Internet users often do not identify themselves in these types of forum. There have been instances when individuals were embarrassed to find that someone else had compiled their postings at Internet news and chat rooms and used them in unexpected ways.

"If someone's breaking the law on the Internet, I think just about everyone supports using Digital Fingerprint to catch them," said Ivan Milovidov, Netlogiclab's Russian-born CEO. "But if used as a surveillance tool, or as a means for manipulating public opinion, it will have serious implications for privacy and individual liberties. It's safe to assume that if we have thought of this functionality, the FBI and the NSA also has."

February 9, 2003 - The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 - The Secret US Department of Justice Initiated USA Patriot Act II.  Click for more

THE NEW OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Now an Agency of 170,000 through H.R. 5005).  PRETTY SCARY IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.  Click For More

"I have nothing to hide, so I wouldn't mind having the chip for verification," And now, we can even be tracked by satellite.  Click for More

Google Sued by US Department of Justice for Protecting Privacy of its Users

20 Jan 2006  DOJgov.net Newswire

Google.com was sued by the US Department of Justice for refusing to turn over personal information concerning millions of its users.  The USDOJ claimed that they wanted the information to monitor "sexually explicit material," although the data requested was randomly intrusive.

The Motion to Compel Compliance was filed on 19 Jan in federal court and claimed the information was needed to enforce the Child Online Protection Act.  This law is currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court because it allows for random internet spying.

When the US Department of Justice demanded that Google supply one million internet addresses in their company database, they were refused.  This enraged the DOJ because unknown to the public, they had been pressuring other major search engines, who substantially complied.

In their suit, the Department of Justice Claimed that the intimidated search engines who went along with their demand "have not reported that they encountered any difficulty or burden in doing so." 

The effect of random spying on the liberty of millions of Americans was never explored.  It has been said that in the world of intrusive government, "the little people" are not affected if they don't know what is going on.

Google objected to the government's subpoena claiming it would be forced to provide personally identifiable information.  The government claimed that it would "keep the data secret," but this remains to be seen.    

"Your Papers Please"

Nov 28, 2005

According to the Associated Press, Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of EVERYONE going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.

Government Creating a New Legal System for American Citizens without Constitutional Guarantees

DOJgov.net Newswire, December 1, 2002

According to the Washington Post, The administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.  This is being confirmed by lawyers both inside and outside of government.

The elements of this new system are already familiar from President Bush's orders and his aides' policy statements and legal briefs: indefinite military detention for those designated "enemy combatants," liberal use of "material witness" warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law enforcement officials and, for non-citizens, trial by military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.

Only now, however, is it becoming clear how these elements could ultimately interact on the ordinary American citizen who might disagree with government policy.

For example, under authority it already has or is asserting in court cases, the administration, with approval of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, could order a clandestine search of a U.S. citizen's home and, based on the information gathered, secretly declare the citizen an enemy combatant, to be held indefinitely at a U.S. military base. Courts would have very limited authority to second-guess the detention, to the extent that they were aware of it.

NATIONAL ID CARD ... ON THE SNEAK

January 31, 2002 www.DOJgov.net News Service - According to the Washington Times, our new Aviation and Transportation Security Agency has devised a method to force a National ID card on the American people.

The electronic card would have an encoded biometric description of the owner to ensure that the person using it is the same person identified on the card. Biometrics will identify a unique part of each person's anatomy, such as fingerprints, facial structure or irises.

Eventually, the Transportation Department task force wants the cards to be used not only in airports but for all transportation services. The card is claimed to to shorten lines at airports, but the USDOJ FBI will disseminate background check information about the owners to many law enforcement agencies.

The idea of expanding the plan from transportation workers to travelers is not without critics:  "This is a backdoor national ID," said Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "This so-called trusted-passenger card will become essentially mandatory for everyone to use not only on airlines but also buses, trains and perhaps drives over bridges and tunnels. The consequences of not having a trusted-passenger card is that you will be immediately suspect."

In order to make this ID more palatable, it will have a reassuring name. "The Trusted Passenger Card" seems to be the current choice to date.   And of course, each American's card will be assigned a level of security or "trust" clearance.

NATIONAL ID CHIP IMPLANT?  Foretaste of a Brave World.  And it's all being done to Protect YOU!

PALM BEACH, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 19, 2001--Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSX - news), an advanced digital technology development company, announced today that it has developed a miniaturized, implantable identification chip -- called VeriChip(TM) -- that can be used in a variety of medical, security and emergency applications.

How VeriChip Works

VeriChip is an implantable, 12mm by 2.1mm radio frequency device about the size of the point of a typical ballpoint pen. Each VeriChip will contain a unique identification number and other critical data. Utilizing an external scanner, radio frequency energy passes through the skin energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal transmitting the identification number and other data contained in the VeriChip. The scanner will display the identification number, but the VeriChip data can also be transmitted, via telephone or the Internet, to an FDA compliant, secure data-storage site. It will then be accessible by "authorized" personnel. Inserting the VeriChip device is a simple procedure performed in an outpatient, office setting. It requires only local anesthesia, a tiny incision and perhaps a small adhesive bandage. Sutures are not necessary.

Personal identity verification technology has gained considerable interest recently. A great deal of focus has been trained on so-called ``biometric'' technologies - which identify individuals by their unique biological or physical characteristics, such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina characteristics, and face recognition points. VeriChip, by contrast, relies on imbedded, tamper-proof, microchip technology, which allows for non-invasive access to identification, medical and other critical data. Use of advanced VeriChip technology means that the threat of theft, loss, duplication or counterfeiting of data is substantially diminished or eliminated. Specific application areas include: enhancement of present forms of identification, search and rescue, and various law enforcement and defense uses.

NewsFactor Dec 19, 2001 - Applied Digital Solutions (Nasdaq: ADSX) announced Wednesday it has developed a miniature, implantable identification chip for use in medical, security and emergency applications. Called VeriChip, the 12mm by 2.1mm microchip containing medical and identification information can be implanted under the skin and read by an external scanner.

National ID Card Gaining Support

Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 17, 2001; Page A01

Navy Petty Officer Wellington Jimenez walked into the identification room at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn one day recently and gave his name, rank and fingerprint. In return, he got a token of the future: a plastic ID card embedded with a computer chip.

The card -- with two photos, two bar codes, a magnetic stripe and the etched gold chip -- looks like a driver's license on steroids. More than 120,000 active duty military personnel, selected reserves, Defense Department civilians and some contractors have received the cards in recent months. About 4 million are to be issued over the next two years.

When Jimenez sits down at a computer on his next ship, the USS George Washington, he will slip the card into a device that will electronically scramble, or encrypt, his e-mail to prevent outsiders from reading it. The same card will automatically give him access to secure rooms across the world. At a military hospital, its chip will one day summon his medical records. Used as a debit card, it may even buy him a sandwich at a base cafeteria.

And more than ever, the cards will enable Defense Department officials to look into their databases and know the doorways he passes through, the computer he accesses, the doctor he sees, all of which is fine with Jimenez.

"I know the government will have more access to my information," Jimenez said. "But I know it's going to be used in the right way. I feel protected."

The high-tech IDs, the latest in "smart cards," were designed for tracking personnel across the globe and running more secure and efficient military operations. But now they are models for something that was unthinkable before Sept. 11: national identification cards for all U.S. citizens.

Almost from the day the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, members of Congress, security experts and high-tech executives have endorsed the idea of some new form of identification system as a critical weapon in the fight against terrorism. They believe the cards, linked to giant databases, would be invaluable in preventing terrorists from operating under assumed names and identities.

Any such proposals in the past foundered on a distrust of centralized government as old as the American republic. Opponents raised the specter of prying bureaucrats with access to databases full of personal information, of Gestapo-like stops on the street and demands to produce papers, and the kind of unchecked police authority that would erode constitutional protections.

The nation's new consciousness of terrorism, a product of both the fear and anger engendered by Sept. 11, has markedly changed the way Americans think about security, surveillance and their civil liberties. For many people, the trade-off of less privacy for more security now seems reasonable.

As Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor, wrote in October in endorsing a national ID card, the "fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card."

"We're willing to accept this immense flow of data to law enforcement and their proxies to make sure we feel safe and secure," said Marty Abrams, an information technology specialist at the law firm Hunton & Williams and former senior credit bureau executive. "The equilibrium point shifted. It was a massive movement by society."

Abrams, privacy advocates and some lawmakers wonder whether all the implications are being considered. "We haven't really looked at what this means in the long run," Abrams said. "In our rush to make ourselves feel safer, have the appropriate due processes been worked out?"

To be sure, the political hurdles to a national ID card remain huge. President Bush has publicly downplayed their benefits, saying they're unnecessary to improve security. Bush's new cyberspace security chief, Richard Clarke, recently said he does "not think it's a very smart idea."

Logistical problems and the potentially enormous costs make it unlikely that a mandatory, national ID system could soon be adopted. In recent testimony before Congress, former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, a supporter of more secure identification methods, warned against using the phrase "national ID" at all because of the political sensitivities. "That's a diversion for people who like to talk about . . . Nazi Germany," he said.

But a range of steps now underway could lead to a de facto national ID system that could accomplish many of the same goals.

Technology specialists at the Justice Department and General Services Administration have acknowledged they are working with motor vehicle officials and commercial vendors to develop a standard for some sort of ID system, mandatory or not.

The Air Transport Association, meanwhile, has called for the creation of a voluntary travel card for passengers that would include a biometric identifier. They proposed linking the card to a system of government databases that would include criminal, intelligence and financial records. Passengers who agree to use the card would have easier access to airplanes.

A bill introduced in Congress by Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.), would establish a Commission on Homeland Security to study the federal government's efforts to protect U.S. security, including the use of national identification systems.

"This commission is not intended to resolve the national identification issue," said Horn. "It is merely to advance the debate in light of the September 11 attacks and the changed world in which we now live."

In the world before Sept. 11, a large majority of Americans expressed concerns about personal privacy in surveys, and those concerns focused on the increasing collection of data -- names, addresses, buying habits and movements -- by businesses interested in developing ever more sophisticated marketing campaigns.

At the same time, they also demonstrated a willingness to surrender personal information for discounts or conveniences, such as cheaper groceries, faster passage through toll booths and upgrades on airline travel, one reason for an enormous growth in databases in recent years.

"It's massive,"said Judith DeCew, a Clark University professor and author of "In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics and the Rise of Technology." "It's financial information. It's credit information. It's medical records, insurance records, what you buy, calls you make. Almost every action or activity you participate in while living a normal life potentially generates a huge database about you."

Tapping Data

State and federal governments also expanded their data networks and use of personal information. Nearly every time police make a traffic stop, for example, they tap into National Crime Information Center databases to check whether the driver is a known criminal or suspect.  And as part of a new and aggressive effort to track down parents who owe child support, the federal government created a vast computerized data-monitoring system that includes all individuals with new jobs and the names, addresses, Social Security numbers and wages of nearly every working adult in the United States. Under the system, banks are obligated to search through lists of accounts for deadbeats, or turn the data over to the government.

Government agencies have also contracted with private companies for information. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, hired a data company called ChoicePoint Inc. to give about 20,000 employees instant access to 10 billion public records containing housing, financial and other personal information about individuals. ChoicePoint provides data to the FBI and other agencies as well.

Privacy groups are troubled by the evolving uses agencies, marketers and others find for the new databases. Law enforcement authorities and private attorneys, for instance, regularly use subpoena power now to gain access to grocery, toll and a bonanza of other kinds of privately collected data for use in civil and criminal cases. And many of the databases that grew so quickly in recent years are now being studied for their potential value to law enforcement authorities.

Acxiom Corp. is lobbying Congress to change a relatively new law that limits their use of driver's license numbers. Acxiom wants to use those numbers to create a new authentication system at airports, improving the ability of clerks to ask travelers personal questions about their lives that would help verify who they are.

A centralized ID database system would dramatically speed verification and make life more convenient for travelers, airlines and others. The disadvantage, according to civil liberties activists, is that agencies would gain access to unprecedented amounts of aggregated data. They also would have to be relied upon to ensure the database is current and accurate. Questions about who would maintain the database and gain access to it would be thorny ones.

An alternative would be to configure databases to allow certain pieces of information, or fields of data, to be accessed by the smart card. This approach would limit the amount of information contained in a single database.

"Any national ID system, regardless of who controls it, has a tremendous potential for misuse and abuse," said John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria.

Even a de facto national ID system, of the sort proposed by motor vehicle administrators, would dramatically ease the collection of sensitive personal information about individuals by linking it all to a single, unique identifier: A smart card with a fingerprint or other biometric.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, a London-based advocacy group that has studied national IDs, said the computers and networks in a centralized system would also become targets of hackers. In recent years, scores of private and government databases, containing financial, medical and other personal information, have been breached by hackers, some who publicized the data or used it in fraud schemes.

It also could make it easier for a successful forger or hacker to maintain a false identity, since authorities would be so trusting in a new, high-tech system. A lost or stolen card under such a system "will paralyze your card or your identity for days or weeks," he said.

"At this point, you created a huge technological infrastructure of such massive proportions it trips over its own shoelaces," he said.

A national identification system would raise privacy questions, said Tate Preston, vice president at Datacard Group, which creates high-tech IDs. But the need for a better identification system is beyond question.

"In the 19th century, it was sufficient to ask who you are," he said. "In the 20th century, it was sufficient to show who you are," he said. "In the 21st century, you will have to prove who you are." 

FBI Confirms 'Magic Lantern' Project Exists

By Elinor Mills Abreu

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) Dec 12, 2001 - An FBI spokesman confirmed on Wednesday that the U.S. government is working on a controversial Internet spying technology, code-named ``Magic Lantern'', which could be used to eavesdrop on computer communications by "suspected criminals."

``It is a workbench project'' that has not yet been deployed, said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson. ``We can't discuss it because it's under development.''

The FBI has already acknowledged that it uses software that records keystrokes typed into a computer to obtain passwords that can be used to read encrypted e-mail and other documents as part of criminal investigations.

Magic Lantern reportedly would allow the agency to plant a Trojan horse keystroke logger on a target's PC by sending a computer virus over the Internet, rather than require physical access to the computer as is now the case.

When asked if Magic Lantern would require a court order for the FBI to use it, as existing keystroke logger technology does, Bresson said: ``Like all technology projects or tools deployed by the FBI it would be used pursuant to the appropriate legal process.''

Major anti-virus vendors this week said they would not voluntarily cooperate with the FBI and said their products would continue to be updated to detect and prevent viruses, regardless of their origin, unless there was a legal order otherwise.

Doing so would anger customers and alienate non-U.S. customers and governments, they said, adding that there had been no requests by the FBI to ignore any viruses.

While the FBI requires a court order to install its technology, formerly called ``Carnivore,'' but renamed DCS1000, some service providers reportedly comply voluntarily, while court orders are relatively easy to get, civil libertarians argue.

``If we were at war the government would be able to require technology companies to cooperate, I believe, in a number of ways, including getting back door access to information and computer systems.''

Anti-Terror Bill or USA Patriot Act number H.R. 3162 Has Potential to Terrorize Us All (Click Graphic)

 FBI Seeking Tools to Control and Censor Internet 

WASHINGTON AP Release October 26, 2001 —  Stewart Baker, an attorney at the Washington D.C.-based Steptoe & Johnson and a former general consul to National Security Agency, said the FBI has plans to change the architecture of the Internet and route traffic through central servers that it would be able to monitor e-mail more easily.

The plans go well beyond the Carnivore e-mail-sniffing system (now renamed DCS1000) which allows the FBI to search for and extract specific e-mails off the Internet and generated so much controversy among privacy advocates and civil libertarians before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“From the work I’ve been doing, I’ve seen the efforts the FBI has been making and it suggests that they are going to unveil this in the next few months,” Baker said of the plan.

FBI Spokesman Paul Bresson said he was unaware of any development in the e-mail surveillance arena that would require major architectural changes in the Internet, but acknowledged that such a plan is possible.

Any new efforts would “would be in compliance with wiretapping statutes,” Bresson said. “We would be remiss if we didn’t.”

Such a move might have been unthinkable before Sept. 11.

Last year, privacy groups and civil libertarians howled in protest when the FBI trotted out plans to start using the Carnivore system. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington was ready to go full rounds with the government in court over Carnivore, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to take another look at its constitutionality.

Now, though, the country is asking for more, not less, law enforcement on the Internet, and even those who once complained are coming around.

“I have two minds on this,” says Fred Peterson, vice president of government affairs for the Xybernaut Corporation, which manufactures computer technology for military and law enforcement. "The past six weeks have left little doubt in most peoples’ mind, he said, that new measures must be taken."

“I don’t think (FBI) motives are bad, but I do think they’re using people’s current state of mind – they’re using it to their advantage,” said Mikal Condon, staff attorney for EPIC.

The new FBI plans would give the agency a technical backdoor to the networks of Internet service providers’ like AOL and Earthlink and Web hosting companies, Baker said. It would concentrate Internet traffic in several central locations where e-mail and other web activity could be wiretapped [Editor's Note: and block "unfriendly" websites?].

Baker said he expects the agency will approach the Internet companies on an individual basis to ask for their help in the endeavor.

Sue Ashdown, executive director of the Washington-based American ISP Association, an Internet company trade group, said most Internet companies aren’t healthy enough financially to take on the government in court to protect their subscribers’ privacy rights. And no one, she says, wants to appear hostile to law enforcement right now.

“In the current patriotic climate, enterprises of all types will likely play along with the FBI in order to avoid a public relations disaster,” said Gene Riccoboni, an Internet attorney with the Stamford, Connecticut-based Grimes & Battersby.