Category Archives: Civil Liberties

Nation Mag Claims ICE has Network of Secret Detention Faciilities — in the USA

Posted on December 25, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

In America's Secret ICE Castles, the Nation magazine claims that our immigration police has 186 secret detention facilities scattered around the country.

Among the more hair-raising allegations:

  • A year ago, a top ICE official boasted, “If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear.”
  • The 186 are mostly unmarked, and locals don't know about them.
  • People sent to these offices are kept off ICE's registry system so that people looking for them cannot find them.
  • Although ICE is not supposed to incarcerate US citizens, it has; they (like the immigrants ICE processes) are denied access to counsel.
  • At least one US citizen was deported as a result of this system.
  • One purpose of the system is to make it more difficult for lawyers to find prisoners before they are deported.

Much of the info concerns activities of the Bush admin; some of it clearly is still happening. The article is maddeningly unclear about how many.

Glenn Beck got a lot of ink a while back for claiming that Obama planned to build a network of secret detention centers in the US in order to lock up Republicans. Who knew that they already existed and were used to deny process of law to suspected undocumented foreigners? Add these to the secret camps in Afghanistan, Lithuania and elsewhere.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 9 Comments

We Predicted This Would Happen: Man Jailed in UK for Failing to Disclose Passphrase

Posted on November 25, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files.

In the UK under the odious Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), if you are served with an order to disclose a passphrase to an encrypted file and you don't, you're guilty.

We saw this coming ten years ago,

Caspar Bowden, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, said ministers still had the power to reintroduce such “objectionable proposals” later as regulations. He said two new offences in the bill raised serious civil liberties concerns:

“The bill will give police the power to demand decryption keys from anyone they suspect of possessing them, and failure to hand keys over can lead to a two-year jail sentence.

“Defendants will be presumed guilty of withholding a key unless they can prove otherwise, a likely contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, and decryption notices will be secret, so it will be impossible to complain effectively if they are used in an oppressive way.”

A “tipping-off” offence could prevent innocent associates from complaining publicly, with a penalty of five-years imprisonment, he added.

The National Council for Civil Liberties took a similar line. Liberty's Director, John Wadham, said :

“These powers are too sweeping, and in some respects problematic. It's difficult to discern quite how an individual could prove that they didn't have a key: you can't prove a negative. This reversal of the burden of proof may well infringe the right to a fair trial. The indefinite gagging order on any individual whose e-mail has been intercepted is extraordinary.”

…

A Home Office spokeswoman denied the bill would mean defendants being presumed guilty. “The bill doesn't reverse the onus of proof, the authorities still have to prove that an offence has been committed for it to get off the ground,” she said.

What Sir Humphrey didn't tell the reporter, of course, is that the relevant “offence” is not disclosing the passphrase, not some underlying crime — of which in this case there is no evidence, although the defendant certainly has issues. But there's evidence that he didn't disclose his passphrase, and that is all it takes to jail him for nine months.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Cryptography, UK | 3 Comments

Another American Radicalized

Posted on April 16, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

A far-right, Barack Obama-hating Baptist preacher had a bad encounter with the Border Patrol and made a video about it: Baptist pastor beaten & tazed by Border patrol – 11 stitches.

Maybe the guys who who beat and tased him were operating under advice of counsel? (But seriously, I bet it's only a matter of time before Fox or someone says this is proof that Obama is Hitler or something.)

Don't use this as a model with how to deal with a traffic stop: If law enforcement tell you you're under arrest — which must have happened at some point, although when isn't clear — one should get out of the car if told to. Or even if told to before arrest. Sue them later. (It's ok to ask if one is required to do so or if one is free to go. But if the officer says you're required to comply, do so — and get their name.)

And, even absent arrest, if there's probable cause for a search — like a dog alert — then law enforcement have the right under current law to search the car. Problem here is that there's a fairly credible allegation that the 'dog alert' may have been a fake. As the law stands, however, that doesn't give one a right to resist arrest. It sure sounds like it would have been wiser to get out of the car one the police showed up, at the latest. But it also sounds like despite the Pastor's charming belief that the 4th amendment applied, or would have protected him even if it did, there were several unjustified acts that could serve well for claims of police brutality.

Why do the “Border Patrol” get to set up checkpoints 75 miles from the border? Because in United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court said they could go up to 100 miles from the border. Which includes pretty the entire state of Florida, since most of it is within 100 miles of the coast!

aclu-map-sm.jpg
Click for a bigger picture.

It's not just a Florida problem. Here's the ACLU:

Much of U.S. population affected

  • Many Americans and Washington policymakers believe that this is a problem confined to the San Diego-Tijuana border or the dusty sands of Arizona or Texas, but these powers stretch far inland across the United States.
  • To calculate what proportion of the U.S. population is affected by these powers, the ACLU created a map and spreadsheet showing the population and population centers that lie within 100 miles of any “external boundary” of the United States.
  • The population estimates were calculated by examining the most recent US census numbers for all counties within 100 miles of these borders. Using numbers from the Population Distribution Branch of the US Census Bureau, we were able to estimate both the total number and a state-by-state population breakdown. The custom map was created with help from a map expert at World Sites Atlas.
  • What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
  • Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Posted in Civil Liberties, Torture | 2 Comments

Defending the Constitutional Right to Be Anonymous

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

Today through Thursday I'm participating in an online symposium at Concurring Opinions in which a whole list of us have been asked to comment on Danielle Citron's article Cyber Civil Rights.

There are already a large number of interesting contributions there, and I've just added mine: CCR Symposium: The Right to Remain Anonymous Matters. It may be controversial.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Law: Constitutional Law, Law: Internet Law | 7 Comments

From the Archive of Half-Baked Ideas

Posted on March 26, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

I appear to have about 200 partly-written posts I've written over the years but never published. The oldest, dated 2003.10.16, has the headline “Karl Auerbach Thinks the Internet is In Danger” but all it says is,

CaveBear Blog: SCO and Verisign, the Techno Bobbsey Twins?

The second oldest, from 2003.10.18 says,

current_new.gif
I've added a graphic that illustrates the current “Threat Level” as based on information uploaded from the Dept. of Homeland Security every two hours. Of course, the whole concept of an official “Threat Level” (whether color-coded or not) is easily one of the dumbest ideas ever to come out of any White House.

One of the goals of a terror campaign is to get the target to waste resources doing silly things. I would like to hear the argument that we have not fallen into that trap.

The graphic didn't last long here – it bothered people as they saw it as an endorsement of the insanity. Now I'd like to hear President Obama or Secty. Napolitano saying they've killed the whole stupid thing.

Posted in Civil Liberties | Comments Off on From the Archive of Half-Baked Ideas

Thomas Tamm Wins a Prize

Posted on March 24, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

Thomas Tamm, whom I wrote about in Wouldn't It Be Nice if Obama Pardoned Thomas M. Tamm? has been awarded a 2009 Ridenhour Prize for truth-telling.

But no words on whether Justice will bring charges or not….

Posted in Civil Liberties | 1 Comment