The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has accused a Department of Defense intelligence sharing program of invading the privacy rights of citizens.
In a November 21 news release the ACLU charges, "The documents released today consist of nine reports from the Pentagon’s Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database that describe as 'threats' several planned demonstrations at military recruitment stations, including sites on college campuses."
The reports were filed by agents of the Federal Protective Service, the agency charged with protecting federal property, such as military recruiting stations, and federal personnel. Copies of the reports are available on the ACLU website.
The federal regulation most often used to provide guidance on gathering and sharing of police intelligence consistent with civil liberties is 28 CFR, Part 23. In its statements to date the ACLU has not claimed the reports are inconsistent with these regulations.
Title 28, Part 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that before information is gathered and shared using federal resources that "Reasonable Suspicion or Criminal Predicate is established..."
Related Stories
Civil liberties group unveils documents on Pentagon surveillance
ACLU protests domestic DOD surveillance
Dems want to see citizen-monitoring database
Title 28, Part 23 Code of Federal Regulations
Prevention Techniques
Recognize Threats: Evaluate how a possible threat is related to current vulnerabilities and likelihood. Criminal Predicate or well-founded Reasonable Suspicion would clearly influence your evaluation of likelihood. What, if anything, does the absence of Criminal Predicate or Reasonable Suspicion suggest regarding a threat?
Prevention Thoughts
Share Information: In reviewing the TALON reports released by the ACLU do you believe the 28 CFR, Part 23 standards were applied or not? Is there sufficient cause to perceive Reasonable Suspicion or Criminal Predicate in what is being reported? Could the same information sharing objective have been achieved in a manner unquestionably consistent with these standards?
Monday, November 27, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Local Role in National Intelligence
A recent study of state and local agencies found, "that only half of the U.S. law enforcement agencies... had received guidance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about what information to collect and pass on. Further, very few law enforcement agencies had applied for security clearances; rather, they relied primarily on the FBI and other sources for threat information."
With a few important exceptions local law enforcement does not perceive a role in intelligence gathering and analysis. While there are over 700,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, only about 100 are estimated to have formal intelligence units. Even in the post-911 era there has been a tendency to focus local efforts on receiving and distributing federal intelligence products rather than targeting, gathering, and analysis by local agencies.
This is not just a law enforcement issue. A RAND Corporation survey found that while the majority of state Offices of Emerency Management had applied for security clearances, "less than half had received them at the time of our survey. While a number of state and local officials have federally sponsored clearances, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was unable to provide an accurate count of how many such clearances had been issued to states and localities."
Related Stories
Spies Among Us
US News and World Report, May 8, 2006
Combating Terrorism
How Prepared Are State and Local Response Organizations?
RAND Corporation, November 2006
Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture
Bureau of Justice Assistance, September 2005
Prevention Techniques
Share Information: Develop effective means for conducting proactive collaborative local intelligence operations that are consistent with privacy rights and civil liberties.
Prevention Thought
Share Information: How can you appropriately use open sources to better understand potential threats to your local jurisdiction?
With a few important exceptions local law enforcement does not perceive a role in intelligence gathering and analysis. While there are over 700,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, only about 100 are estimated to have formal intelligence units. Even in the post-911 era there has been a tendency to focus local efforts on receiving and distributing federal intelligence products rather than targeting, gathering, and analysis by local agencies.
This is not just a law enforcement issue. A RAND Corporation survey found that while the majority of state Offices of Emerency Management had applied for security clearances, "less than half had received them at the time of our survey. While a number of state and local officials have federally sponsored clearances, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was unable to provide an accurate count of how many such clearances had been issued to states and localities."
Related Stories
Spies Among Us
US News and World Report, May 8, 2006
Combating Terrorism
How Prepared Are State and Local Response Organizations?
RAND Corporation, November 2006
Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture
Bureau of Justice Assistance, September 2005
Prevention Techniques
Share Information: Develop effective means for conducting proactive collaborative local intelligence operations that are consistent with privacy rights and civil liberties.
Prevention Thought
Share Information: How can you appropriately use open sources to better understand potential threats to your local jurisdiction?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
