SURVEILLANCE STATE: Questions and Concerns

INTRODUCTION The following are some questions that might be worth considering for it seems that there is a distinct disadvantage within Congress due to the fundamental lack of understanding of these emerging (or already apparently emerged) technologies. Debate and discussion in Congress and other political bodies, in the United States and other democratic nations, of the ramifications of these technologies and their applications, has apparently been fairly limited, and even technical briefings that may occur are likely to gloss over the capabilities and potential uses of these systems today and in the future, were a few alterations to be made to those systems, to the laws themselves, or given a mere change in policy or directives issued. There has been, to date, a lot of focus on increasing the scope of these technologies, and very little effort made to balance these capabilities with additional protections for the public, to ensure their Constitutional rights are effectively protected and to ensure that these powers are not abused. No one is diminishing the importance of security against terrorism, however out of respect for the integrity of democracy and the freedom from intrusion by government into both private and political life, the cost of balancing these additional powers must be addressed with equal weight, particularly in terms of accountability of those entrusted with these powers. Issues of Oversight and questions of Separation of powers is more important now than ever, yet in the trend toward expediency, efficiency, and coordination of resources, those separations are now being tossed in favor of integrations, meanwhile accountability and oversight by elected representatives and independent or non-partisan bodies is at an all-time low. Please consider the following, both in terms of their potential use today and in the future, and what might be their use given a few legal changes to the United States political system and/or policy changes that might occur with successive leadership. Please also consider not just the abuses that may be made possible, but the negative effects the use of these technologies might have upon political life in the United States and even other countries, if the people, private individuals, politicians, businesspersons, and even regular folk are subjected to this kind of ongoing surveillance and scrutiny. As it stands, these technologies, their tracking and intercept capabilities, and the storage of metadata and raw data, effectively represents the potential ongoing wire tapping and file keeping of the entire populace.

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS (and other political representatives)

Accountability We have been assured that 'we got the balance right...' in terms of the checks and balances of accountability. Is this true? What of Snowden's claim to have witnessed abuses of the system by those involved in its operation and attempts to report those abuses? What are these checks and balances? What are the procedures? What means of recourse do the workers themselves have to safely report abuses and breaches of privacy, specifically to independent oversight, without fear of recourse? ANSWER: Ramifications: Integrity of Data - Evidence With direct access to the system, can digital information be altered without leaving a trail? The answer is yes, it can. False or misleading information can be added to a person's file. That is the nature of digital information. It is not a hard copy and it can be altered. Apparently CDs and DVDs can also now be erased and rewritten. ANSWER: YES Ramifications: Scope of Data - Digital Profiles Is data stored in any way that could be called up into a detailed profile on a person without a search warrant? This would include combining tracking data history, communications history, and archived digitization of audio, video,

would include combining tracking data history, communications history, and archived digitization of audio, video, images and text. Does the NSA or any other agency or organization connected in any way, have the ability to call up, at will, detailed information on an individual? ANSWER: Ramifications: Relevance: There is no true difference beyond a 'technical/semantic' one between 'keeping a file' on a person and being able to compile one from raw data at will. Therefore 'weasel words' like saying 'we don't keep profiles on individuals' are misleading. If such information can be called up at the press of a few buttons, and possibly without reliable record of such a search being conducted, there is no way to know that fishing expeditions are not being done without first having reasonable suspicion. ANSWER: Ramifications: Use of Access - Accountability Are there records of searches conducted of individual users, by those who use PRISM and other programs and systems the NSA or other agency/organization possess, that include the scope of those searches. Are there reliable records of whether those searches have been copied in any way or data removed from the system and transferred to other systems or data storage? Are those records in hard copy or are they digital and subject to alteration? ANSWER: Ramifications: Influence - #1st Amendment Given the popularity of social media among the population, is there any ability of computer programs like Facebook, Twitter, or even a person's Internet or digital telephone connection (cell, voice over IP, skype, Facetime etc.) to influence the quality of communication and the reach of an individual? ANSWER: YES, we know this already. Ramifications: Examples: Throttling: We know that a person's bandwidth can be 'throttled', meaning intentionally slowed down. With the introduction of FB timeline and the fact that a person's updates no longer go out to all of their friends, and the ability to target advertising, we know that it is possible to control or limit how much reach a person has, in terms of their ability to communicate. Suppression - #1st Amendment Current laws are calling for a 'kill switch' on cell phones, citing theft concerns. Are there iron-clad provisions in these laws that enable only the owner/subscriber to activate this kill switch or will government also have the ability to do this? During the Boston situation, some fuss was made about people turning off their cell phones in case the signal would detonate a device. However, if such a thing were truly an issue, the effects of signals would already have impact before the involvement of law enforcement. If accidental triggering were to be a real possibility, then people's cell phone calls would also 'cross over' one another on a daily basis. What reasonable cause do law enforcement authorities have to request that cell phones and other communication devices be rendered inoperable in the event of an incident, thereby preventing the people from communicating with friends, family, media and/or legal representatives. ANSWER: Ramifications: Market influence Have the technology companies that have been involved with the activities of the NSA and any other organizations in the intelligence community's activities been compensated in any way for their cooperation or implementation of these programs and technologies? If so, are any of these companies publicly traded? Have revenues derived from these activities affected their share value? Can this be considered unfair competition in the marketplace? Can it also be considered indirect influence of the marketplace? If a company receives a contract whereby they will be compensated directly or indirectly by government, should the amount of funds be disclosed in some way, in order not to unduly influence share performance in the markets. With regards to private companies and contractors, what separations are there between these organizations and those who hold political influence, or have previously held political influence?

ANSWER: Ramifications: Tracking Given Google's recent purchase of Waze, for instance, the ability to track people using their cellular phones or other devices is already available and happening in real time, for purportedly benign purposes in terms of government surveillance. Is there any mechanism available to government agencies or related organizations to track a person's movements without being first authorized by a search warrant? ANSWER: Ramifications: Flagging Q: Last year, it was reported that 'not having a Facebook profile' or not using Social Media could be considered suspicious by employers or authorities. Is a person subject to being flagged for not using Social Media? A: Q: If a person does not keep their cell phone or data device charged or use communications technology during their travels, will they be flagged? A: Q: If a person drives a vehicle without a 'lojack' or similar type tracking system, will they be flagged? A: Q: If a person uses cash instead of digital payment, will they be flagged? Is using cash for purchases now considered suspicious? A: Q: If a person discusses or communicates about government or any of its departments, agencies, or individuals, will they be flagged? Or, will discussion of key words pertaining to this subject contribute in any way to being flagged? Reason for clarification: flagging programs likely include combinations of factors that increase the level of suspicion by the program. A: Q: Is there a rating system within the program of 'how suspicious' an individual is considered by the program? How automated is this process? A: Protection against future abuse If an individual has been investigated and surveilled and had their private data (meaning anything not made public or kept public by the individual) collected, stored and profiled, but has been deemed not to be a threat, is that data then destroyed? ANSWER: Ramifications: Interference Is it possible that individuals with access to these systems, who are able to call up information on other individuals, can use that information to influence, discredit, blackmail, or disrupt the life and/or livelihood of an individual in any way, for personal gain, social or political reasons? ANSWER: Ramifications: Interference Does the government employ, either directly or indirectly, individuals tasked with influencing social media in any way? ANSWER: Ramifications:

Ramifications: Jurisdictional Workarounds Since Constitutional and legal protections do not traditionally apply outside the borders of the United States, is it possible to redirect or reroute an individual's communications through a foreign jurisdiction, in order to bypass United States laws? This includes bulk routing of datastreams. If it is not yet possible, what is a realistic expectation of when it will be possible, given the current and anticipated rate of technological advance? ANSWER: Ramifications: In terms of data collection If a foreign power, agency, or organization operating outside of US jurisdiction is empowered directly or indirectly by US government agencies or organizations in their employ, what agreements and assurances are in place to prevent those organizations from misusing that information or tracking and profiling US citizens and their personal and business activities? ANSWER: Ramifications Foreign nationals In terms of foreign nationals who may be subject to additional levels of scrutiny but are deemed not to be engaged in terrorist activities, what Constitutional protections of their rights to privacy do they have, when conducting business and personal lives in the United States, or are they tracked and profiled on a de facto basis? This must be clarified if we are to have successful trade and interaction with our friends and neighbors, many of whom have family and business relationships with the United States. ANSWER: Ramifications:

Recourse and Restitution In the event that an investigation is undertaken of an individual as a result of flagging, surveillance or levels of suspicion, is there any kind of impact assessment made of the effects of that investigation upon the life and livelihood of that individual? If a person has fallen under suspicion or been swept up in the net, leading to further scrutiny, and that scrutiny has negatively impacted them, are there means and methods of restoring their credibility and reputations? If such individuals are deemed not to represent a terrorist threat, but have been negatively impacted, are they simply left in ruin because they said the wrong thing, encountered the wrong people, or happened to behave in a way that appeared suspicious according to whatever criteria is used by the system? ANSWER: Ramifications: ------NOTES: It is recommended when considering the above questions (and there are certainly many more that should be asked) that testimony by employees, consultants, contractors, 'experts' and technical personnel involved in the intelligence and technology industries be treated with suspicion for the following reasons: 1) They may be subject to gag orders preventing them from giving straight answers or detailed explanations. 2) Whether in direct or indirect government employ, or in the private sector, they already have a vested interest in giving misleading, false, or 'weasel word' answers since it is to their disadvantage to reveal or explain the potential of these technologies. 3) Technical people may be prone to only giving direct technical answers to questions, rather than extrapolations of possibilities and potential uses. Like computer programs, each request has a specific response that does not include

possibilities and potential uses. Like computer programs, each request has a specific response that does not include related subjects. This may not be intentional evasiveness, but merely a product of their technical training. The challenge is in asking the right questions, which is difficult to do when dependent upon those same individuals to explain the workings and potentials of these systems. Also, the answer of 'one cannot do a certain thing' may be in relation to the existing system. It must also be accompanied by the question, can a program be written and implemented that would do such a thing, given the available resources? MESSAGE: If you feel these questions are worth addressing in Congress, or if you live in another democratic country and consider these questions are worth asking of your own political representatives, please forward this to your politicians. No doubt they are making efforts to understand these issues, but it is likely that much of their advice comes from those who have a vested interest in these systems. Without public debate, discussion and hard-hitting questions from knowledgeably and informed political representatives on behalf of their constituents who must needs be informed, there will be no resolution to these matters. Simple assurances and banal platitudes are no longer good enough, given the massive invasion of privacy conducted in secret upon the people of America and the people of the world. This surveillance scheme may have unearthed a few dozen situations that might be considered terrorist activities we dont truly know the validity of those claims but we must consider the cost, not just the enormous financial cost, but to our privacy, our business activities and our political life and the integrity of our democracies.

PLEASE COPY AND FORWARD THIS ALONG WITH CONCERNS YOU MIGHT HAVE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES Share with others. Democracy requires that we discuss issues that affect us. It is worth having the discussion, at the very least.