Privacy Maven

Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence wants us to change the way we perceive privacy.

As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Kerr’s comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans’ privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people’s private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.

Donald Kerr

As Wired’s Ryan Singel points out, this redefinition of privacy has staggering and worrisome implications.

Hmm. Suppose there was a rogue employee at your ISP who got access to your internet traffic. The worst case scenario I can think of for most people is that that person might try to blackmail you. As for stealing your credit card, its far more likely this would happen at a restaurant or a retail store.

What can’t your ISP do that an intelligence service can?

* Arrange to have you sent to a country like Syria to have you tortured like the government did to Maher Arar. Though the Canadians have since apologized and paid him $10 million for being tortured for almost a year, the U.S. government hides its culpability using the “state secrets privilege”

* Put you on a government watch list

* Find a tenuous connection between you and suspected bad guys in order to justify further surveillance

* Find a way to nail you for material support to terrorism

* Build secret files on Americans’ First Amendment-protected political activities

* Use those files to round up dissidents in the event of an “emergency”

In other words, this Administration – of which Kerr is only a small player – believes that the nation’s spooks microphones and data-mining robots should be inserted deep into the nation’s telephone and internet infrastructure. They don’t want court oversight, they don’t want Congress asking questions, they don’t want inspectors general crawling through their program logs. They think that they should have this power because they promise not to abuse it and there are laws prohibiting some of the things on that list.

They believe that they, unlike the Nixon Administration, won’t be tempted to create an domestic enemies list. That they won’t start adding groups like Food, Not Bombs and Quakers to terror data bases (only the Pentagon could be so stupid). That they won’t make mistakes and transpose phone digits when doing phone surveillance (only the FBI could be so careless.) That they won’t confuse Tuttle for Buttle, or Senator Ted Stevens’ wife Catherine for notorious terrorist Cat Stevens.

Yes, quite worrisome. As Mike Nizza points out, there are no end to the objections that we can and, indeed, must raise:

And there were many more objections from privacy-focused observers, including a declaration that Mr. Kerr “has decided to kill privacy,” an invocation of Benjamin Franklin about those who “deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” and a compact summation of Mr. Kerr’s remarks by an expert talking to The A.P.:

‘’It’s just another ‘trust us, we’re the government,’ ” said Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

A writer at Ars Technica added, “It’s hard to have too much confidence when the F.B.I. is busy losing laptops and the nature of such programs appears to be one involving little oversight from independent branches of government.”