Surveillance, NSA, Big Brother, leakers, intrigue, lies — the public’s awareness of how government watches us has spread way beyond privacy advocates worried about security cameras. Official snooping in and around Seattle remains the primary business of Seattle Privacy, but we think it’s sensible to add a section on the site to address the bigger issues. “About that NSA leak…” begins today with a link to an FAQ about the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities (as they are now publicly understood). We’ll add other links from time to time while trying not to go overboard with a news story that just won’t stop.
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to blog more, friends. I’ve been riveted by the international discussion kicked off on these issues. I’m happy to say that our message is now coming from people with much larger soapboxes than ours. For example:
Nils Muiznieks, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, “advocated a new set of safeguards, including greater clarity over the laws governing surveillance, firm guidelines on the use and storage of surveillance data, and the creation of oversight bodies “accountable to parliament rather than the executive”.
I found the above at the bottom of an article about Edward Snowden having to live in the Russian airport, which apparently most people find much more interesting:
Seattle Privacy co-founder Lee Colleton shares the following photographs from the Rainier Valley:
“These nodes aren’t online, but they’re installed. I photographed every node I could find and posted it publicly.
Yesterday, the Guardian revealed that the US government has been collecting months of phone “metadata” on millions of Verizon customers. Today, the Washington Post and the Guardian informed us that both the National Security Agency and the FBI have been pulling Americans’ data from major web companies like Facebook and Google.
Here’s a useful archive from ProPublica of articles on federal surveillance programs.
And for a fascinating look into what was happening at the NSA after 9/11, and some insight into how we got here, visit “The Secret Sharer,” a brilliant New Yorker article Jane Mayer wrote about Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency official who was charged in 2010 with violating the Espionage Act. The government alleged that Drake had illegally retained and shared top-secret documents related to Trailblazer, a program designed to help the N.S.A. track cell phones and e-mail. The New Yorker has unlocked the piece in light of recent developments so its available to all.
Frankly, we just can’t hold down our jobs and write about it all. Besides, we want to keep our site as focused as possible on engaging with local government, because that’s where we think that we can make the most difference. But we had to at least MENTION the whole #PRISM thing, if only for our own sanity.
Visit our Contact page to sign up to receive calls for action. We’re in coalition-building mode and we need many voices to convince the City Council that the public cares about this stuff. We’re planning an email and phone call campaign in the future. Please join us.
Seattle Privacy Coalition co-founder Allegra Searle-LeBel points us to this excellent EFF article, which summarizes a special landmark report [PDF] on state surveillance and freedom of expression delivered this week by Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion.
It makes for refreshing and relieving reading, we highly recommend it. As EFF puts it, the UN “gets it” — that with all the amount of information and evolving surveillance technologies, law enforcement agencies now can:
- Directly observe people’s relationships and interactions and make inferences about their intimate and protected relationships.
- Examine millions of people’s communications and rapidly identify precise communications interactions on any given topic.
- Track any person’s physical movements almost all of the time and draw conclusions about one’s professional, sexual, political, and religious activities, and attitudes from individuals’ associations and Internet traffic.
- Routinely retain data for decades, so that statements and interactions can be searched, analyzed, and recalled long after they have been made.
- Do all of the above simultaneously.
La Rue calls for legal frameworks to ensure that communication surveillance measures “Are prescribed by law, meeting a standard of clarity and precision that is sufficient to ensure that individuals have advance notice of and can foresee their application,Are strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, adhere to the principle of proportionality, and are not employed when less invasive techniques are available which have not yet been exhausted.”