tagged w/ Surveillance Society
-
The Continually Expanding Definition of Terrorism
Public Intelligence
Though the United States has been engaged in a Global War on Terror for more than a decade, the U.S. Government surprisingly does not have a standardized definition of terrorism that is agreed upon by all agencies. The State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and a number of other government agencies all utilize differing definitions of what constitutes an act of terrorism. This lack of agreement has allowed individual agencies to present different and, in some cases, far more inclusive definitions of terrorist acts enabling the use of expanded investigative procedures that might not be applicable in other agencies.
The FBI utilizes a definition of terrorism based upon the agency’s general functions under 28 CFR § 0.85. Under this regulation an act of terrorism is defined by “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The USA PATRIOT Act expanded this definition to include domestic acts within the definition of terrorism. Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act modified the legal definition of terrorism (18 USC § 2331) to include a category of “domestic terrorism” that is defined by “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” that are conducted primarily within the jurisdiction of the U.S. At the time, this expansion of the definition of terrorism was decried by the ACLU as “broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations.”
One of the defining features of terrorist acts has always been a component of violence. Even under the expanded definition of terrorism created by the USA PATRIOT Act, there must be an act that is “dangerous to human life” indicating some form of physical harm to others could arise from the action. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security, extended the definition of terrorism further by including any act that is “damaging to critical infrastructure or key resources.” Though this definition differs from the legal definition of international and domestic terrorism under 18 USC § 2331, the modified definition is currently used by DHS as the basis for their own activities and intelligence products that are disseminated to federal, state and local law enforcement. The modified definition of terrorism is presented in a revised Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon published last year by DHS:
Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Notice that the statement “potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources” is part of a disjunction, indicating that the act need not be “dangerous to human life” for it to be considered an act of terrorism. This means that, according to DHS, a non-violent actor could be capable of committing an act of terrorism simply by engaging in “potentially destructive” behavior towards some part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Due to the fact that large sections of domestic infrastructure, including everything from banks to bridges to milk processing plants, are now considered critical infrastructure, a wide range of “potentially destructive” actions could be investigated by DHS or any one of the dozens of fusion centers around the country as potential acts of terrorism. The DHS Domestic Terrorism Lexicon states that the definitions presented in the document are designed to “assist federal, state, and local government officials with the mission to detect, identify, and understand threats of terrorism against the United States by facilitating a common understanding of the terms and definitions that describe terrorist threats to the United States.”
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service states that this ambiguity in the definition of terrorism can create confusion “in the investigative process regarding exactly when criminal activity becomes domestic terrorism.” The report also notes that the government often uses the terms “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably creating further ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes an act of terrorism. A 2009 study from Syracuse University found that U.S. Federal District Courts, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division and federal prosecutors all rely on different criteria to determine whether or not specific cases involve terrorist acts. This lack of agreement has led to widespread failures to obtain prosecutions of suspects recommended for charges by investigative agencies. In fact, the study found that from 2004-2009 “assistant United States attorneys all over the country declined to bring any charges against two out of every three (67%) of the thousands of terrorism matters that the investigative agencies had recommended for criminal prosecution.” The Syracuse study ends with a warning about the ambiguity surrounding the definition of terrorism:
The strong evidence that various parts of the government do not share a common understanding about terrorism has important consequences for all Americans. Those most immediately affected are the thousands of people whom the investigative agencies each year incorrectly recommend for prosecution in federal court. But to the extent that the investigators systematically waste their time targeting the wrong suspects, the chances increase that they will fail to identify the real terrorists who right now may be seeking to plant bombs, spread poisons or otherwise harm a much larger number of innocent people.
To solve these problems the study offers a surprisingly straightforward solution: come up with “a clear and understandable definition of terrorism.”The Continually Expanding Definition of Terrorism
Public Intelligence
Though the... more
-
-
-
On the radio this morning I heard a broadcast by the government, it contained voice samples of a fertiliser salesman, a confused neighbour and various other individuals. the voices commented on slightly peculiar behaviour such as having blacked out windows on a normal terrace house and the purchase of a large amount of feritiliser. After the people have spoken a man's voice tells us that "all of these things may sound normal on their own but join them together and it all adds up,", then we're told that we should report anything remotely suspicious and a number to call is even given.
This to me seems especially wrong, first of all it is attempting to strengthen the belief that for Britain to be safe we must become undercover spies in our own homes, I can't help but see symmetry with the way the Nazi's developed their world of control for the peoples safety. Secondly it acts to increase the effect of terror by provoking a belief that we are at some great risk, rather than ensuring people remain strong in the face of such terror.
I hope that the people of Britain do not descend in to mindless accusations against people who do anything remotely peculiar, and that this nation does not become more and more like the police state which should be feared by all people who have any remote level of intelligence. So let us remove the ever tightening grip of totalitarianism in the UK, and hence save ourselves before it's too late.
Thankyou,
Nathan RJ RocheOn the radio this morning I heard a broadcast by the government, it contained voice... more
-
-
When New Labour came to power in 1997 an almost perfect fit between innovation in surveillance technology and an intrusive, 'we know best', government came to fruition. A perfect storm of Orwellian proportions was brewing.When New Labour came to power in 1997 an almost perfect fit between innovation in... more
-
-
Everything I read about Fusion Centers makes them seem less and less of a good idea.
-
-
The UK is a bit more heavy on surveillance than the US, but still...if this what they're doing, I hate to think what the US stats are.The UK is a bit more heavy on surveillance than the US, but still...if this what... more
-
-
Open ID is now being used by Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Paypal, Google, Microsoft, AOL, MySpace, IBM, LiveJournal and VeriSign, among many others.
OpenID is a distributed single sign on solution that allows people to sign into different services with the same login credentials.
Simply put, one cracked OpenID site (by hackers, the government, parents, etc) could result in total profile information access and/or one's identity being abused over several other OpenID sites.
The creator of OpenID currently works at Google.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID#Security_and_phishingOpen ID is now being used by Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Paypal, Google, Microsoft, AOL,... more
-
-
I wanted to make my mark on America before I left. And I wanted the world to see it.
-
-
ARE YOU LIVING IN THE CONSTITUTION FREE ZONE?
Click on your state in the map to find out how many Americans are currently living WITHOUT full constitutional protection.
If we are not outraged, if we are not all doing something everyday to recover our nation, we will lose the opportunity to live in a free country.
Support the ACLU as they fight for all of us.
ARE YOU LIVING IN THE CONSTITUTION FREE ZONE?
Click on your state in the map to find... more
-
-
No, I'm not going to link to it. But Dutch researchers have published their findings on how to copy the information on Mifare Classic radio chips used in London's 17 million Oyster cards.
"Once we knew how the system worked and what the vulnerabilities were, it turned out to be very simple to actually clone cards, steal someone's identity and enter a building as someone else," said Bart Jacobs, a scientist at Radboud University in the Netherlands. No, I'm not going to link to it. But Dutch researchers have published their... more
-
-
-
The Open Rights Group and the No2ID are asking everyone in Britain to take photos of the stuff that embodies the fact that the UK's surveillance society. They're collecting photos via uploads to Flickr tagged with “FNFBigPicture”. They'll then take all these photos and put them in a massive "live collage" to be displayed in a prominent London location (TBD) on 11 October as part of the Freedom Not Fear Day 2008.
Here's the Flickr set so far:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=FnFBigPicture&m=tagsThe Open Rights Group and the No2ID are asking everyone in Britain to take photos of... more
-
-
The British Government has new plans for personal data to be collected from people traveling between countries inside the EU and stored away for 13 years to help "profile" suspects. Brussels is already considering controversial plans to collect 19 pieces of information from any person traveling into the EU, but British plans would like to push this further.
They want the data collection to extend to sea, air and rail travel, including domestic flights and flights between EU countries. They also want to be able to share that data with countries outside of the EU and are the only country in Europe who want the plans to cover "more general public policy purposes" besides fighting terrorism and organised crime.
The data includes personally identifiable information such as credit card details and mobile phone numbers. Civil libertarians and data protection officials have said that the plans are draconian and probably ineffective. Britain leads the world as the most advanced surveillance state with the most CCTV cameras per capita in the world, are these new plans a step to far?The British Government has new plans for personal data to be collected from people... more
-
-
New rules on licenses pit states against federal government
"Residents of at least 17 states are suddenly stuck in the middle of a fight between the Bush administration and state governments over post-September 11 security rules for driver's licenses -- a dispute that, by May, could leave millions of people unable to use their licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings."
...your papers please...New rules on licenses pit states against federal government
"Residents of at... more
-
-
Is your country becoming a fascist nation?
Let's use this checklist.
-
