we are stardust's picture

    Billion-dollar FBI System for Bio-Matrix ID, Next Step in Security State [updated with video]

    By we are stardust on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:15am |

                                            

    According to RawStory two days ago, and now other publications, the FBI has announced that it will ‘dedicate’ a billion bucks for Lockheed Martin to develop the ‘Next Generation Identification System’.  It will be compared to the Total Information Awareness Program that was defunded by Congress in 2004, but parts of which Wikipedia says still exist.

    The first stage will be dedicated to creating a massive database of fingerprints and connecting to other law enforcement ID systems around the world, and providing scanners to police and sheriffs all over the US.  It would enable the collection of prints from suspects, not just indicted or convicted criminals.

    The Bloomberg coverage of the announcement accepts the FBI’s announcement with little concern for privacy.

    The next phases of the contract with Lockheed if funded would expand the program to biometrics such as facial identification and retina scans.  Rawstory contacted the ACLU, and D.C. legislative counsel Chris Calabrese warned that this program is a big step toward a surveillance state in the US:

    "Facial recognition is one of the most invasive biometrics because it allows surreptitious tracking at a distance," Calabrese continued. "They can secretly track you from camera to camera, location to location. That has enormous implications, not just for security but also for American society. I mean, we are now at a point where we can automatically track people. Computers could do that. That's what, we think, is a grave danger to our privacy."

    "Law enforcement's focus should stay where it's been for a 100 years: finding bad guys, but since 9/11 the focus has shifted toward terrorism. It's suddenly this idea that's like, well, let's scrutinize the whole U.S. population before trying to find bad guys."

    He went on: "In the United States, you're innocent until proven guilty for a reason. You're supposed to have the right and the ability to live your life free of government scrutiny. That's fundamental to American values.

    "That's what we're really talking about here: a shift in American values, from a place where you can live your life unencumbered by government scrutiny to one where you really have to worry whether the government is watching you either through a video camera, or a police officer who could step up and potentially ask you for a fingerprint at any time."

    In somewhat related news, on March 24 the WSJ reported on the Obama administration’s new rules allowing a longer time before police are required to read a ‘terror suspect’ their rights.  Attorney General Holder suggested the change after criticism of the way the Underwear Bomber and Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, even though both suspects provided information after they were advised of their rights.  There was still plenty of (hypocritical) criticism leveled at the administration, so by instituting these new rules, Holder may hope to deflect more. 

    It may be a tough sell to make this extra assault on Miranda rights through executive order rather than Congressional approval.  Or not.

    This is the FBI's page describing the program. 

    PBS once aired the British mini-series 'The Last Enemy' based on the Total Information Awareness Program; it is the thriller of thrillers, IMO.

    (cross-posted at My.firedoglake.com)

    from The Last Enemy:


    Comments

    We've seen those people who fly the Gadsden Flag and insist that the Second Amendment preserves their individual right to maintain howitzers and all manner of weaponry against the day they might need to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

    How is it that it is these very same people (in most cases) who defend these kinds of Fourth Amendment abuses in the name of "national security?" Does it not occur to them that any entity that would be granted such invasive and pervasive surveillance powers as is proposed here for our government is capable of defeating ANY form of insurrection? Think about it. Such overbearing oversight and interference into our daily lives provides the powers-that-be the tools with which to effectively thwart any insurrection, EVEN OF THE KIND that might be otherwise expressed at the voting booth!

    "Vigilance is the price of Liberty!" warned Thomas Jefferson. Just how vigilant are we when we surrender Liberty itself to the government, which has shown a real and practiced propensity to violate those Liberties in pursuit of its own "security?"


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:29pm

    As we've seen, anyone can become an enemy of the state, and the WoT gives so many excuses to put people on Concern Lists, and some are there just for advocating for peace (positively heretical!), or giving to charities that might have links to Mulsim (gasp!) organizations...

    But yes; it seems the Tea People have co-opted the Don't Tread on Me flag; pretty sad.  Though the other folks who get me banging my head against the wall are the ones who declare that if you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of this. 

    But: this is the Obama administration's FBI, and Holder's rules about mmm...waiting to inform suspects of their legal rights. 

    Seriousl, The Last Enemy was the most frightening series I've ever watched.  I've been researching the genesis of solitary confinement and control units; guess who they were designed for?  Yep; you got it.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 1:00pm

    I think you're right in your assessment of "conservative" Republican support for Fourth Amendment abuses during the Bush Administration. And I think it would be right to say that progressives, not conservatives, are leading the charge against Obama's continuation of those abuses.

    Yet is it true that Tea Party enthusiasts tend to defend abuses of privacy? I'm not so sure on that count. Part of me still holds out hope that those abuses will be challenged by some vocal and sizable constituency within the Tea Party, especially if they are executed by Obama. 


    by Watt Childress on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:24pm

    Think about it, Watt. Can you imagine the Kochs and Dick Armey and their bobbleheaded Tea Partiers rising in defense of Brad Manning's Constitutional Rights? I can't see it happening at all. They're too involved in promoting the GWOT, and the only "criticism" I hear of Obama from this quarter is targeted at his ultimate legitimization of Dick Cheney's abuses despite his past comments to the contrary.

    "See?" they say with gleeful aplomb. "We told you Dick Cheney was right when he trashed the Constitution and the War Crimes Act to get at our enemies."

    The Obama legacy as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is decidedly horrific in all its implications. Quite frankly, it's indefensible and serves as cause to withhold not only my support but my vote from him as well in the upcoming election. I don't vote for war criminals. Gotta draw the line someplace, and that seems to be a pretty plausible distinction to be made in my choice for President.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:41pm

    No, I can't imagine the Kochs, Armey and their followers standing up for rights to privacy or other key pillars of freedom. I do think the libertarians are less apt to follow those forces when it comes to said abuses. Do libertarians hold much sway with the "conservative" movement and the Tea Party? I don't know, But it is noteworthy that Ron Paul continues to have a strong following.


    by Watt Childress on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 12:58am

    Re: the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama:

    A cranky man living in Iraq recently posted a diary at My,fdl with the text of part of his Cairo speech printed upside-down, obviously with the meaning that Obama's foreign policy has been the upside-down (reverse, converse, obverse; I always forget the terms) of those statements.  Now I grant you that Doc Cleveland said here that his Libyan actions exactly matched the speech, but I don't see it.

    And Dick Cheney has been very complimentary of the ways that Obama has proceeded to manage to subvert the Constitution in so many ways.

    I did just check at antiwar.com, Watt, to see if any Libertarians had written lately on any of these issues, but I didn't see anything.  It's the place where the very left can meet the very Libertarian on some issues.  ;o)  It will be interesting to watch all this unfold, if indeed anyone pays any attention at all.  We seem to give away our liberties and privacy easily.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 4:39pm

    When ever I read or hear about these sorts of things it always amazes me. There is this belief in this country that computers are infallible and the information contained within is totally correct and indisputable and reliable, disregarding the fact that they are built, programmed and maintained by humans. Beings that are the antithesis of correct and reliable. Which of course makes them the ideal targets of anyone who chooses to game or otherwise sabotage the system.

    And this proposed data base will of course become target number one of some hackers. You can count on it.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:44pm

    Point taken!  Think of all the 'No Fly List' scandals; easy to get on, even if mistaken, impossible to get off. 

    The TIA program in Great Britain was planned to link every security camera, biometric software and hardware, etc. in real time.  "Resistance is futile", IOW.

    Given the ease with which the American public can be encouraged to be fearful, how much privacy will we be willing to cede in the name of faux-security.  The airport scanner flap was a moment in time, a tempest in a teapot...  I just keep seeing the red caped cloaks of The Handmaid's Tale.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 1:09pm

    My experience is that the more convinced people are of a system's' security, the easier it is penetrate and/or circumvent.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 2:37pm

    You reminded me of this story: the Iranian government recently proudly announced their new cyber army of the Basij, which includes university instructors and students, as well as clerics, attacking websites of the enemy. Without resorting to the power of the Basij, we would not have been able to monitor and confront our enemies...


    by artappraiser on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:08pm

    It's clear that some of the greatest risks to human security come from corporations. Are draconian security meaures aimed at real people a tactical diversion from the real need for corporate regulation? 


    by Watt Childress on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:37pm

    I found this link that kind of fits into all this.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-25/john-kao-paul-saffo-tim-brown-offer-3-ways-to-reinvent-america/3/

    It is a rosy picture of technological changes, but if you read between the lines....

    The corps control everything; joining with other corps in pships that take away all of our rights!

     


    by Richard Day on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:50pm

    I'm not sure I'm taking your meaning exactly, but there doesn't seem to be much of a bright line between corporations and the governments any longer, either federal or now in many states.  It's clear that's been true for decades with our foreign military misadventures, but now in vastly more arenas.

    Unwinding it ever seems like an almost insurmountable task some days.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 4:47pm

    bright line between corporations and the governments

    Well, there is one.  When the government wants to do something that would require it to get a warrant, it goes to the corporations for ad hoc help, guaranteeing, of course, post facto absolution if things go south.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 1:07am

    Another fine mess we've gotten ourselves into!  ;o)  (Cue Stan and Ollie...)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:42am

    I was merely pondering the disparity between government's increased scrutiny of our private lives and its continued neglect of the hazardous business dealings of corporations. Just wondering whether the former might serve as a psychological diversion from the dire consequences of the latter.

     


    by Watt Childress on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 1:19am

    You're probably right, even if it weren't planned, but is now exploited.  Though sometimes it seems America Idol is almost enough diversion/narcotic for most.  I swear, when I tune into network teevee, it seems like I live on a different planet than a large segment of the population.  The shit we choose to care about!


    by we are stardust on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:47am

    Emptrywheel discusses the Obama memo concerning delaying Miranda notification, and the abuse potential by the FBI, et.al.:

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/25/the-abu-zubaydah-standard-in-obamas-miranda-memo/


    by we are stardust on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:34am

    Latest Comments