FBI nudges state 'fusion centers' into the shadows
WASHINGTON -- The FBI is pressuring states to become more secretive and limit even routine oversight of the bureau's data-sharing arrangements with local police, a new document shows.
A memorandum of understanding written by the FBI and signed by the state of Virginia in February 2008 aims to curb congressional and press oversight of a joint venture called a Fusion Center. Here's more on Fusion Centers.
The memorandum, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and released on Friday, says that any "disclosure" to Congress of information shared with the Fusion Center can happen only "after consultation with the FBI." It also says that requests from media organizations even for non-classified material made under Virginia's open government laws will be referred to the FBI and then strongly opposed.
It also indicates that the FBI is responsible for a Virginia state bill called HB1007 -- introduced two days after the FBI signed the memorandum on January 6 -- that would exempt the Fusion Center from open government laws.
That bill is worrisome. It rewrites open government laws to say that even non-classified statistics about the total number of investigations targeting "an individual who or organization which is reasonably suspected of involvement in criminal activity" will be exempt from disclosure to news organizations and the public.
Nobody wants truly confidential or classified information to be disclosed (except, perhaps, to the historians of the next generation). But the Virginia proposal goes too far, and exempts even reports and statistics that could show overzealous surveillance and other possible misbehavior by Fusion Center staff.
In reality, there's no need to amend Virginia's open government law; it already includes a slew of can't-disclose-these exemptions including "public safety" records, anti-terrorist plans, and reports given to "state and local law enforcement agencies."
This hasn't stopped police from misrepresenting what's going on. "Federal agencies aren't going to share with us classified information if they think we're going to share that information," Capt. Tom Martin, commander of the Virginia State Police Criminal Intelligence Division and the administrative head of the Fusion Center, told the Virginian-Pilot. "We're going to protect it."
If Martin and the other Fusion Center honchos want a narrow state law reiterating that classified information can't be disclosed, perhaps it makes sense to enact one. But that's a far cry from HB1007's broad exceptions, and not an argument that the currently-proposed law is either wise or necessary.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
it will be wrapped in an American flag."
Well, the FBI is certainly doing its part.
Carte blanche access with no oversight means constant abuse of power with no means of correction. Who will watch the guardians indeed! All you need to do is look at the FBI under Hoover, and more recently, their behavior over the Winter Hill Gang in Boston and the murder of Roger Wheeler to see that they still abuse their power in harrassing and allowing the deaths of innocent Americans.
Finally, no federal government agency should be allowed to propose ANY law. That is a strict violation of the seperation of powers. That's not to say that an employee can't privately propose a law through his or her elected representative, just that the agency itself cannot.
That's good policy. Otherwise, they will never share information and the failure to share information is precisely what made 9/11 possible.
I understand the concerns, Declan, but do get a sense of how the US agencies have to coordinate to secure us. It isn't all big brother. It can become that, assuredly, but that is more likely to come from electing bad public officials than from some secret cabal of civil servants. They aren't that good at caballing or being civil. :-)
Google knows more about your private lives than these centers do, and there are very few working policies or laws restricting what they do about it. If you need to worry, that is what you should worry about. The Federal, State and Local law enforcement databases already operate under strict regulations and guidelines.
Good article, though. Part of keeping our freedoms is oversight but don't lash out needlessly unless and until you have good evidence of malfeasance. Paranoia is like fungus; it spreads far from the source of origin and chokes what would otherwise be healthy activities.
-
by eng.dan
May 8, 2008 5:28 PM PDT
- all very disturbing
-
Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)