surveillance update november 13

7/25/2019 Surveillance Update November 13

1/103

Millennial DebateNovember 12, 2015 Policy Update

Executive Power & New Pone !ecord" #a"e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%Executive Power D NU$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'2( Pone !ecord" !ulin) Nu" D"*Executive Power$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$5

Nuclear +errori"m$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Nuclear +errori"m -mpact #ard$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

-ndia/Pai"tan E"calation$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$2( -- 3on4t U"e Nue"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$112( No Dirty omb ttac" 6et$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$12Dirty omb Economy -mpact"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1%

#loud #omputin) dvanta)e & n"wer"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1#loud #omputin) dvanta)e 7in$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1.2( #loud #omputin) dvanta)e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$18

9enetic urveillance Ne)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 209enetic urveillance olvency n"wer"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$21

9enetic urveillance :$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ %09enetic urveillance olvency /// 2( tate*7ocal$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%1

9eneral Privacy*urveillance$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%2

9eneral Privacy olvency n"wer"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%#orporate Privacy Protection #ounterplan$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%'

#P ; #orporation" #an Protect #u"tomer Data*Not are it 3it te9overnment$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%5

ection .02 :$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'22( PDD/28 olve"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ '%

ection .02 Ne)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'5tatu" orei)n Policy 7in$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$52Pre"idential Power" 7in" ; #on)re""ional 7imit"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$55

+errori"m*>orei)n Policy 7in to Protectin) Privacy o? Non/U Per"on"$$ $$5Politic" 7in to >orei)n Privacy !i)t"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$58Propo"al" ?or Protectin) Privacy o? Non/U Per"on" A#ould be Plan" or#ounterplan"B$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$0Expanded >- Cver"i)t >ail"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%-ntera)ency #oordination #P$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'

E+#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ould v$ all$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.9overnment" #ollectin) Private Metadata$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8Public dvocate olvency$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$No E:ective urveillance Cver"i)t$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.1urveillance olvency n"wer"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.%

!ace/a"ed urveillance$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.5!ace/a"ed urveillance 3ide"pread$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.!aci"t ProFlin)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 802( =older 9uideline" olve$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$812( #ourt" olve$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$82urveillance -"n4t u"picion/a"ed$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8%-nternational 7aw dvanta)e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$85!acial ProFlin) @iolate" -nternational 7aw$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8

1


2/103


>ree peec dvanta)e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 1!acial ProFlin) Ne)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 2

#an4t olve tate*7ocal // N6PD$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%!aci"t -mmi)ration En?orcement$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'

2


3/103


Executive Power & New PhoneRecords Case

%


4/103


5/103


federal appeals court blocked executive orders designed to shield millions of undocumented

immigrants from deportation.

5


6/103


A'( Phone Records Ruling Nus DAs)ExecutivePower

*he ruling has no signi+cant i#pact $ecause

!! the progra# was alread% set to expire

' it onl% i#pacts a ew plainti-s

. A di-erent court ruled the opposite

Devlin Barret, November 9, 2015, Wall Street Journal, Federal Judge Rules Against NSA Phone

Surveillance Program, http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-

program-1447091701DOA: 11-12-15

WASHINGTONA federal judge has ruled against the National Security Agencys collection ofAmericans phone recordsa victory for civil-liberties advocatesbut the impact is limited because

the program is due for major changes by months end. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon on

Monday sided with conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, who had requested a court order barring the

NSA from collecting the phone records of some of his clients. The clients had sued the NSA over the data

collection following revelations from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. This court simply cannot,

and will not, allow the government to trump the Constitution merely because it suits the exigencies of the

moment, Judge Leon wrote in his 43-page decision. Mr. Klayman called the decision a tremendous

victory for the American people, and said he plans to continue fighting the case at a trial seeking

monetary damages from the government. Late Monday, the Justice Department filed an emergency request

to stay the judges decision, saying that the technology behind the surveillance is so complex that to

immediately halt collection on one individual would require them to stop all the collection. The NSA

currently collects millions of Americans phone records in order to search them for possible ties to terrorists.

The records include the time, duration and number called, but not the content of the conversations. In

June,Congress passed a law that will end this collection of the records. Instead the NSA will be

allowed to search the phone companies databases for such call records, but only if it gets a warrant. That

change will take effect on Nov. 29, and government lawyers had urged Judge Leon to allow the NSA to

conduct a transition to the new system on its own schedule. Judge Leon rejected that request. He noted that

with the coming changes, the case may mark the last chapter in the current fight over the governments

collection of phone records. But he said the constitutional issues presented are crucial ones, and that the

case wouldnt end the debate over the governments use of technology to conduct surveillance. Although

this court appreciates the zealousness with which the government seeks to protect the citizens of our nation,

that same government bears just as great a responsibility to protect the individual liberties of those very

citizens, he wrote. Judge Leon also refused to stay his order to allow time for further appeals. However,

the ruling affects only some of the plaintiffs in this particular case, since they demonstrated in court

that their records were being collected. Last month, a federal appeals court in New York ruled in theopposite direction on the same issue,saying the phone records collection could continue until the

program changes at the end of November.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-program-1447091701http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-program-1447091701http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-program-1447091701http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-house-bill-overhauling-nsa-surveillance-program-1433277227http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-house-bill-overhauling-nsa-surveillance-program-1433277227http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-appeals-court-backs-government-in-nsa-phone-surveillance-case-1446128749http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-appeals-court-backs-government-in-nsa-phone-surveillance-case-1446128749http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-program-1447091701http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-program-1447091701http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-house-bill-overhauling-nsa-surveillance-program-1433277227http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-appeals-court-backs-government-in-nsa-phone-surveillance-case-1446128749


7/103


Nuclear *erroris#

.


8/103


Nuclear *erroris# /#pact Card

0e would retaliate to a terror attac tensions are high

glo$al nuclear war1irtue & 2egl 3; bot Hournali"t" in 7ondon ; citin) a U economi"t and?ormer 3illiam E$ imon #air in Political Economy in te #enter ?or trate)icand -nternational tudie" at 9eor)etown ADr$ Paul !obert"B and a renownedmerican trend ?oreca"ter and publi"er o? an internationally di"tributedIuarterly +rend" Gournal A9erald #elenteBJ!ob @irtue & )ne" Ke)l, Mi)rant cri"i" and Euro ten"ion" treaten to tri))ercata"tropic conLict claim expert",ttp(**www$expre""$co$u*new"*world*0.158*3orld/3ar/%/Expert"/rai"e/?ear"/mi)rant/cri"i"/could/lead/to/cata"tropic/"cenario

*he scenario/ e"pecially te one currently bein) played out in erbia and =un)ary / is

hauntingl% si#ilartothat which triggered the 4irst 0orld 0ar5 +eproblem a" mani?e"tin) it"el? in central Europe were =un)ary i" be"ie)ed by )rowin) number" o?re?u)ee" pa""in) trou) ?rom erbia and #roatia, ?orcin) it" )overnment to build ?ence" to "tem teinLux$ =un)arian prime mini"ter @itor Crbn warned European li?e and it" e"tabli"ed law" were undertreat ?rom u)e number" o? people eadin) trou) te continent ?rom war/torn "tate" in te Middle Ea"t$-n a de?ence a)ain"t critici"m o? te a))re""ive "tance a)ain"t re?u)ee" taen by te country , e "aidye"terday( OCur border" are in dan)er$ Cur way o? li?e were we re"pect te law i" in dan)er$ O+e wole o?=un)ary and Europe i" in dan)er$ O+e mi)rant" are blitin) u"$O =un)ary and erbia ave con"tantly beenat eac oter"Q troat" over te i""ue, wit udape"t ur)in) it" non/EU nei)bour" to do more to elptacle te )rowin) nei)bour" mi)rant"$ -t i" now "endin) troop" armed wit rubber bullet" and tear )a" to

te border wit erbia to protect te countryQ" ?rontier$ Pinter 6ence, a 7ungarian political8ournalist?or te mandiner$u web"ite "aid te "ituation wit )rowin) ten"ion" between nation" wa"remini"cent o? te international "cenario ?rom Hu"t over 100 year" a)o$ =e said( 9*his is howthe eve o the 4irst 0orld 0ar could have looed lie( co#pletehesitanc%, the ter#ination o the usual channels o diplo#ac%, thelac o solidarit%, pressure to tae a step and the countries issuingthreats to each other are all re#inding us o that$ -t deFnitely doe"nQt loo lie acooperatin) Europe$ OMr Crban i" ri)t in "tatin) tat it would only wort to tal about Iuota" i? we cancontrol te re)i"tration o? te mi)rant" comin) to Europe$ nd "o ?ar no country a" any idea ow to dotat$ O+atQ" wat te =un)arian 9overnment a" done, tou) it ri"" proHectin) an ima)e o? inumanity$O=e "aid report" o? a #roatian train Flled wit 1,000 mi)rant" ille)ally enterin) =un)ary la"t wee, couldea"ily be te "ort o? act tat e"calate" te currently ?rau)t "ituation$ Politician" in udape"t de"cribed tetrainQ" unannounced arrival a" a OmaHor, maHor incidentO$ Mr Pinter "aid( O3at did te #roatian)overnment tin wen tey "ent a train wit '0 ?ully armed police oRcer" on it, cro""in) te border at ared "i)nalS -n te wor"e ca"e" an a:air lie ti" can lead to an outbrea o? a war$O +e e"calatin) "ituation

on te continent a" al"o drawn intere"t acro"" te tlantic Ccean$ 7ie Mr Pinter, 9erald Celente,who is a trend orecaster in the United States, said the current crisisdraws huge parallels with a previous glo$al con:ict ! in this case theSecond 0orld 0ar5 =e blame" mericaQ" attac" on 7ibya, -raI and mo"t recently yria, ?orbrin)in) Ore?u)ee" o? warO to Europe$ Mr #elente "aid ti" i" )oin) and in and wit trade war", wit#ina devaluin) it" currency to )ain a )lobal advanta)e, "imilar to wat appened prior to te econd3orld 3ar$ #on"iderin) te current "ituation in yria, were merica i" bombin) pre"ident a"ar al/""adQ" re)ime wile @ladimir PutinQ" !u""ia i" de?endin) im by attacin) --, i" warnin)" are all too

clear$ =e "aid( O0e;re on the #arch to war5 7istor% is repeating itsel5 O-tQ" arepeat o? te 1%0"$ +e cra" o? 12, te 9reat Depre""ion, currency war", trade war", world war$O3eQve )ot te panic o? Q08, te 9reat !ece""ion, currency war", trade war" and now weQre "eein) te

re?u)ee" o? war "weepin) on te "ore" o? Europe$O =e "aid another $ig terror attac on

societ% will see an e#otional outpouring across the 0estern world

8
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607158/World-War-3-Experts-raise-fears-migrant-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenariohttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607158/World-War-3-Experts-raise-fears-migrant-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenariohttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607158/World-War-3-Experts-raise-fears-migrant-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenariohttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607158/World-War-3-Experts-raise-fears-migrant-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenario


9/103


that will then transor# into a catastrophic thirst or revenge 5Mr

#elente "aid( O*he% are leading us to the next great war$ All it is going to

tae is a terror attacandpeople will $e t%ing %ellow ri$$ons

around ever%thing that doesn;t #ove, waving A#erican :ags andwe;re o- to what Einstein called the whole war scenario $O US

econo#istDr Paul #rai) Ro$erts, wo "erved in te !ea)an admini"tration, i" anoter wopredict" doom on te orion$ =e "poe at an Cccupy Peace event or)ani"ed by Mr #elente at te weeend

about ri"in) ten"ion"$ Dr !obert" re#ared on the i#pact o a nuclear war underthe currentl% tense cli#ate, i countries such as Russia and Chinaare involved5 =e "aid the e-ects would $e devastating, as there would$e a 9+rst!strie, pre!e#ptive orce 95=e added( OAr#ageddon could $e

at hand$ 9*his is chilling5 People should $e scared to death59 !unnin)alon)"ide te ri"in) ten"ion between )lobal "uperpower" i" te treat emanatin) ?rom -"lamic tate$ Gu"twee" a)o -talian prime mini"ter er)io Mattarella "aid te "eed" o? a maHor conLict were bein) plantedacro"" te re)ion, wit reli)iou"/ba"ed terrori"m at te root o? it$ peain) at a meetin) o? world leader" in

Ri#ini, e said( 9*erroris#, ener)i"ed by a ?anatical belie? in 9od, ai#s to start athird world warin te Mediterranean, te Middle Ea"t and ?rica$


10/103


/ndia!Paistan Escalation

Next /ndia!Paistan crisis escalates, no deterrence

Dr$


11/103


crumble into pieces under its own weight. Thirdly, both Pakistan and India believe that nuclear

deterrence worked in the past to avoid a war under the fear of mutually assured destruction(by using

strategic large-yield nuclear weapons) and can once again play the same role. This point is without

considering the fact that both have entered the era of TNWs that are both portable and handy.

Fourth, both Pakistan and India can continue banking on the third partys diplomatic intervention

to reduce the near-war crisis between them, as the US has done every time in the past, and the same can

happen again dispassionately. This point is without realising the fact that, since 1999, the US has movednearer to India and farther from Pakistan. The major hindrance to the estrangement between Pakistan and

the US is the ongoing war on terror seconded by the engagement of US forces in Afghanistan. The US

prefers not to annoy Pakistan at this time. Fifth, both Pakistan and India think that their theoretical nuclear

principles, strategies and doctrines are equally workable practically. This is despite the fact that neither of

them tested these paradigms on the ground, as there has taken place no nuclear war between them.

Computer-based simulations are not an alternative for a physical battleground.

South Asia has transcended the limits of possessing nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes, thereby

making the concept of nuclearisation for deterrence purposes dead and rendering the concept of minimal

credible or credible minimal deterrence outdated. The added pressure is exerted by the absence of anytreaty agreeing on no first nuclear strike against the other. Furthermore, with the lowering of the nuclear

threshold, the chances of abrupt or accidental escalation of a nuclear war have increased manifold between

Pakistan and India. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, there is available no internal handle to turn off the nuclear

menace.

11


12/103


A'( /S/S 0on=t Use Nues

/S/S seeing #ass illing, will use nues i the% can get

the#- ave dedicated mo"t o? my pro?e""ional li?e to reducin) and eliminatin) tenuclear treat" to our country and our planet$ +ey are orri?yin) enou)witout any exa))eration$ +e -"lamic tate a" repeatedly demon"trated it"barbarity, includin) it" willin)ne"" to u"e cemical weapon"a)ain"t civiliantar)et"$ +ere "ould be no Iue"tion tat i? )iven te mean" and opportunity,tey would do te "ame wit nuclear or radiolo)ical weapon"$ +at i" notin)to "co: at$ nd te treat i" only )rowin) wor"e$

12
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/world/middleeast/syrian-familys-agony-raises-specter-of-chemical-warfare.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/world/middleeast/syrian-familys-agony-raises-specter-of-chemical-warfare.html?_r=0


13/103


A'( No Dirt% 6o#$ Attacs >et

*his doesn=t #ean there won=t $e dirt% $o#$ attacs in

the utureGoe Cirincione &Ge: 0ilson, Nove#$er ?, 2015, 3ar on te !oc", 3y -?ear te dirty bomb and you "ould too,ttp(**waronteroc"$com*2015*11*wy/i/?ear/te/dirty/bomb/and/you/"ould/too*DC( 11/11/15That is an unacceptable cost to pay. Mauroni says that Yes, there arehundreds of cases of lost or stolen

radioactive material every year,though overwhelmingly not highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And

yet there has never been a detonated dirty bomb in history. Ever. Simply because something terrible has

not happened does not mean that it cannot or will not happen. This is the fallacy of using past

performance to predict future behavior; every stockbroker warns you about doing this. A space

shuttle had never blown up, before one did. A tsunami had never struck a nuclear power plant, until

one did. A terrorist group had never flown planes into office towers, until one did.

1%
http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/https://nmed.inl.gov/ViewPDFs.aspx?path=AnnualReports&file=../AnnualReports/NMEDFY10%20Annual.pdfhttps://nmed.inl.gov/ViewPDFs.aspx?path=AnnualReports&file=../AnnualReports/NMEDFY10%20Annual.pdfhttps://nmed.inl.gov/ViewPDFs.aspx?path=AnnualReports&file=../AnnualReports/NMEDFY10%20Annual.pdfhttps://nmed.inl.gov/ViewPDFs.aspx?path=AnnualReports&file=../AnnualReports/NMEDFY10%20Annual.pdfhttp://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/https://nmed.inl.gov/ViewPDFs.aspx?path=AnnualReports&file=../AnnualReports/NMEDFY10%20Annual.pdfhttps://nmed.inl.gov/ViewPDFs.aspx?path=AnnualReports&file=../AnnualReports/NMEDFY10%20Annual.pdf


14/103


Dirt% 6o#$ Econo#% /#pacts

A dirt% $o#$ in New >or would destro% the glo$al

econo#%Goe Cirincione &Ge: 0ilson, Nove#$er ?, 2015, 3ar on te !oc", 3y -?ear te dirty bomb and you "ould too,ttp(**waronteroc"$com*2015*11*wy/i/?ear/te/dirty/bomb/and/you/"ould/too*DC( 11/11/15

It actually could be worse. Imagine what would happen to the world economy if a dirty bomb went off

on Wall Street. A2006 studypublished by the Naval Postgraduate School does. In it, former Deputy Chief

of the Fire Department of New York John Sudnik writes that: Any large scale attack could reasonably be

expected to involve the Financial District in lower Manhattan. With hundreds of financial firms

encompassing all aspects of the industry, it is arguably the most valuable node of the American economy

worth protecting. On any given business day, a few hundred thousand employees inhabit a relatively small

cavernous, high-rise building area of less than one square mile. This area has previously been the recipientof two relatively catastrophic attacks; and it remains an extremely susceptible target for yet another, more

cataclysmic, strike. He goes on to estimate: The after-effects of 9/11 have proven that an attack on this

sector will reverberate through the entire U.S. economy. [An] attack in which 40 city blocks in Lower

Manhattan are contaminated beyond Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines would

undoubtedly cripple the local and regional economies. If such an event were to take place in the areas of

Lower or Midtown Manhattan, utter devastation would be offered on the entire NYC metropolitan area.

Hence, it is entirely appropriate to consider a radiological attack at any one of these locations a weapon of

mass destruction event [and while it is] difficult to quantify the exact amount of economic damage

likely to be incurred losses resulting from an RDD attack in the area of the New York Stock Exchange

could actually reach $1 trillion.

A dirt% $o#$ would shut!down DC

Goe Cirincione &Ge: 0ilson, Nove#$er ?, 2015, 3ar on te !oc", 3y -?ear te dirty bomb and you "ould too,ttp(**waronteroc"$com*2015*11*wy/i/?ear/te/dirty/bomb/and/you/"ould/too*DC( 11/11/15For those who need a refresher,according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,a dirty

bomb is one type of a radiological dispersal device (RDD) that combines conventional explosives, such as

dynamite, with radioactive material. A dirty bomb would not produce a nuclear explosion like those at

Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Few, if any, people would die in a dirty bomb attack. Only those close to the

conventional explosion would be immediately harmed. But the radioactive material laced within the bomb

would be spread dozens of blocks or even miles from the explosion, depending on the size of the bomb andthe radiological material used.

Indeed as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, a dirty bomb is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction

but a Weapon of Mass Disruption, where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists major objectives.

This is a true terrorist weapon that would spread throughout a city a potent fear that exposure would cause

cancer, birth defects or heavy metal poisoning over the years. Think of it as if somebody sprayed asbestos

in your apartment building. No one would die and you could go in and out, but nobody would for fear of

exposing themselves to cancer-causing agents.

1'
http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/https://fas.org/irp/threat/sudnik.pdfhttps://fas.org/irp/threat/sudnik.pdfhttp://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.htmlhttp://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/https://fas.org/irp/threat/sudnik.pdfhttp://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html


15/103


Mauroni calls this fear irrational, and says that my claim of radioactive contamination causing an

affected city center to shut down is ridiculous. He elaborates, saying that

What Cirincione means (but doesnt say) is that public officials, panicking because of the perception of

radioactive dispersal in their city, will order the evacuation of people from the contaminated area to include

a healthy buffer area further out, not because of the actual public health risk of a few millicuries of

radiation exposure every day, but because they dont want to be fired as a result of not being reactiveenough.

Downtown Washington is a small piece of real estate. In fact, all three branches of the federal government

are only about two miles apart from one another. Does Mauroni really think that if someone were to set off

a dirty bomb somewhere on Pennsylvania Avenue, the federal government would continue to function?

If I found out that a dirty bomb had exploded on the National Mall, and that my office was a half-mile

away and the wind was blowing away from me, would I stay at work? No way. And neither, I would bet,

would Mauroni even knowing a great deal about the limitations of such a device. Certainly no one else

in the city would stay in place, calmly continuing to work. The city would be in a mass panic. Irrational?

Maybe. But very real terror would grip the city.

This would not impact just the uninformed public, and it would not be over in just one day. If even a

small dirty bomb attack dosed the U.S. Capitol, Supreme Court, or House or Senate office buildings with

cesium (which bonds with cementby the way), would any of the thousands of legislative or judicial staffers

who keep the government running really come back to work? I remember when the Rayburn House Office

Building was wrapped in plastic and workers in HAZMAT moon suits worked for days after ananthrax

scare in 2001.

A dirt% $o#$ would shut!down @A ports, destro%ing theecono#%

Goe Cirincione &Ge: 0ilson, Nove#$er ?, 2015, 3ar on te !oc", 3y -

?ear te dirty bomb and you "ould too,ttp(**waronteroc"$com*2015*11*wy/i/?ear/te/dirty/bomb/and/you/"ould/too*DC( 11/11/15This is not just my speculation. A2007 studyby the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism

Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern California analyzed the impact of a dirty bomb attack on

the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. While human casualties would likely be low, the study

concluded:

One of the major concerns about the dirty bomb threat to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is the

potential for an extended shutdown of the regions operations. While it is very hard to predict how long the

ports would be inoperable it is understood that large areas of the ports would be subjected to short-,

medium-, or even long-term closures because of: concerns of dock workers about returning to work,

concerns of shippers about delivering goods to the harbors, [and] extensive procedures related to

decontamination activities.

The continued shutdown of the Port of Los Angeles would be economically devastating. The report goes

on:

Several shut-down scenarios were analyzed, ranging from short (15 days) to medium (120 days) to long

(one year). The 15-day shutdown has a small impact (about $300 million) because most ships would

simply wait out the port closures and businesses would be supplied through other ports. The 120-day and

15
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41890.pdfhttp://n.pr/1Kda5xkhttp://n.pr/1Kda5xkhttp://n.pr/1Kda5xkhttp://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://openscenarios.ida.org/scenarios/42-Port_of_LA_Dirty_Bomb.pdfhttp://openscenarios.ida.org/scenarios/42-Port_of_LA_Dirty_Bomb.pdfhttp://openscenarios.ida.org/scenarios/42-Port_of_LA_Dirty_Bomb.pdfhttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41890.pdfhttp://n.pr/1Kda5xkhttp://n.pr/1Kda5xkhttp://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/why-i-fear-the-dirty-bomb-and-you-should-too/http://openscenarios.ida.org/scenarios/42-Port_of_LA_Dirty_Bomb.pdf


16/103


one-year shutdowns, in contrast, have significant impacts ($63 and $252 billion, respectively) because they

account for the economic impacts of a delay of delivering goods as well as all ripple effects throughout the

nations economy that such long-term delays involve. This includes costs ranging from the loss of local

dock worker jobs to the reduced income and possible forced closure of nationwide businesses not receiving

necessary parts or retail products.

1


17/103


Cloud Co#puting Advantage &Answers

1.


18/103


Cloud Co#puting Advantage @in

US surveillance under#ines the cloud co#puting industr%

Daniel Severson, Su##er2013, =arvard -nternational 7aw Gournal,ttp(**www$arvardilH$or)*wp/content*upload"*52ever"on$pd? mericanurveillance o? Non/U Per"on"( 3y New Privacy Protection" C:er Cnly

#o"metic #an)e, DC( 11/1%/15 ever"on // J.D. 2016; Harvard Kennedy School,

M.P.P. 2016. Daniel Severson served as a Harvard Presidential Public Service Fellow at the U.S.

Department of Defense, and a Council of American Ambassadors Fellow at the U.S. Department

of State

$ Economic #o"t"y "ome e"timate", U$$ companie" "tand to lo"e billion" o? dollar" ?rom

con"umer" coo"in) non/U$$ tecnolo)y "ervice provider" tat tey perceivea" le"" vulnerable to U$$ "urveillance$ -n Guly 201%, a mont a?ter tenowden di"clo"ure", a #loud ecurity lliance "urvey ?ound tat T o? non/U$$ member" reported tat tey ad eiter canceled a proHect wit or werele"" liely to u"e U$$/ba"ed cloud "ervice provider"$ n1%2 naly"t" e"timatedtat te U$$ cloud computin) indu"try could lo"e between %5 billion and 180 billion$ n1%% Ganuary 201' "urvey "u))e"t" te"e prediction" mayalready be playin) out( 25T o? %00 riti" and #anadian bu"ine""e" "urveyedindicated tat tey were movin) teir data out"ide o? te United tate"$ n1%'Cne 3a"in)ton, D$#$/ba"ed privacy lawyer warn" tat merican companie"are Otain) a beatin) in te maret placeO a" a re"ult o? perceiveddi"crepancie" in privacy protection"$ n1%5 -n anticipatin) tat countrie" will

develop "tricter dome"tic privacy re)ulation" and data/localiation law", te-n?ormation +ecnolo)y and -nnovation >und predict" tat )rowt in te U$$tecnolo)y/"ervice" indu"try could "low by a" muc a" ?our percent$

18
http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/562Severson.pdfhttp://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/562Severson.pdf


19/103


A'( Cloud Co#puting Advantage

*heir i#pact assu#es an industr% collapse and

surveillance onl% slows the industr% down $% BDaniel Severson, Su##er2013, =arvard -nternational 7aw Gournal,ttp(**www$arvardilH$or)*wp/content*upload"*52ever"on$pd? mericanurveillance o? Non/U Per"on"( 3y New Privacy Protection" C:er Cnly




of State

Cne 3a"in)ton, D$#$/ba"ed privacy lawyer warn" tat merican companie"are Otain) a beatin) in te maret placeO a" a re"ult o? perceived

di"crepancie" in privacy protection"$ n1%5 -n anticipatin) tat countrie" willdevelop "tricter dome"tic privacy re)ulation" and data/localiation law", te-n?ormation +ecnolo)y and -nnovation >und predict" tat )rowt in te U$$tecnolo)y/"ervice" indu"try could "low by a" muc a" ?our percent$

/t=s exaggerated, i#pacts never occurred





of State,p$ '88/

>ir"t, te economic co"t" may be exa))erated$ 3eter i)/tec bu"ine""leader", lawyer", Hournali"t", or con"ultant", eac party a" an intere"t inexa))eratin) te dama)e ?rom electronic "urveillance in order to bol"ter"ale", reader", or te attention o? lawmaer"$ Exa))eration i" po""ible$ -n tecontext o? cybercrime, computer "ecurity companie" claimed tat teeconomic co"t ?rom intellectual property te?t wa" i)//a" muc a" 1trillion$ n1'2 +e"e e"timate" may ave been exa))erated, owever,

becau"e te a""e""ment" relied on "el?/reported F)ure" and becau"e tecomputer "ecurity companie" ad an incentive to portray a more dan)erou"treat environment to drive bu"ine""$

econd, "ome o? te mo"t dramatic economic concern" ave ?ailed tomaterialie$ +ae data localiation, ?or in"tance$ !ou)ly "peain), datalocaliation law" reIuire companie" to "tore citien"Q data witin a countryQ"border"$ n1'' uc initiative" are not new$ #ina, -ran, and !u""ia aveimpo"ed policie" tat reIuire all citien data to remain in/country$ n1'5

1
http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/562Severson.pdfhttp://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/562Severson.pdfhttp://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/562Severson.pdfhttp://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/562Severson.pdf


20/103


nowdenQ" unautoried di"clo"ure" prompted democratic )overnment" lierail to pur"ue te"e expan"ive policie", a" well$ n1' =owever, railultimately dropped a data localiation reIuirement ?rom it" -nternet re?ormbill$ n1'. uildin) data center" a" turned out to be expen"ive andcomplicated$ naly"t" ave al"o ar)ued tat "uc data localiation mayactually reduce privacy becau"e data eld o:"ore and out"ide o? U$$ Frm"

would be le"" "ecure and would re"ult in lower le)al urdle" ?or Ncollection$ n1'8 e"ide" data localiation, "ome ob"erver" al"o worried tat"u"picion about te inte)rity o? U$$ tecnolo)y Frm" in te wae o? tenowden revelation" would co"t te"e companie", n1' but "toc price" ?orcompanie" lie >aceboo and #i"co ave not "u:ered$

0e a$sor$ econo#ic costs all the ti#e





of State

p$ '88/

>ourt, te U$$ )overnment may view te economic co"t" a" tolerable$ Cnerecent "tudy attempted to Iuanti?y te annual co"t" o? cyber crime and cybere"piona)e by analo)iin) tem to te co"t" o? doin) bu"ine"" in oterindu"trie"$ +e report noted tat car cra"e", maritime piracy, and pil?era)eo? "ale" inventory eac co"t "ociety rou)ly one percent o? national income

per year$ n151 De"pite te"e co"t", we continue to drive car", u"e )iantmercant "ip", and "ell )ood" becau"e te"e activitie" provide a))re)atebeneFt" in eRciency and convenience$ +e U$$ )overnment may ave madea "imilar calculation( altou) "urveillance may co"t U$$ Frm", "uc co"t"are acceptable in li)t o? te beneFt" to national "ecurity, weter tatmean" in?ormation to combat international terrori"m or "trate)ic intelli)enceto in?orm ?orei)n policy$ +e co"t" may even be more tolerable tan oteraccepted co"t"$ >or in"tance, automobile accident" co"t te United tate"between billion to 18 billion per year, or between 0$.T and 1$2T o?9DP, a co"t we are willin) to accept becau"e o? te beneFt" "uctran"portation provide"$ n152 y contra"t, e"timate" indicate Nsurveillance co"t" U$$ cloud computin) Frm" Aa maHor "ector o? te U$$

economyB le""//between 1.$5 billion and 0 billion over two year" A201'/201B$ n15% 3ile te"e co"t F)ure" are not entirely comparable, tey"u))e"t tat te )overnment may ave rea"on to con"ider te co"t" to"ociety a" acceptable$

/t=s a sun cost

20


21/103






of State,p$ '0

>i?t, it i" po""ible tat te dama)e i" done, and tat ?urter )overnmentaction will not elp U$$ Frm" in a meanin)?ul way$ -n ti" "en"e, nowdenQ"unautoried di"clo"ure o? "en"itive document" may ave created a one/time"un co"t$ -? ti" i" true, ten te economic co"t i" unavoidable but "ould nota:ect ?uture deci"ion/main)$

21


22/103


enetic Surveillance Neg

22


23/103


enetic Surveillance Solvenc% Answers

Can=t solve #ost genetic surveillance is state and local,

outside o ederal in:uenceGa"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p5 "'

+e pa"t Fve year" ave "een a dramatic and, until now, wolly unexamined"plinterin) o? )enetic surveillanceby law en?orcement$ -nve"ti)ator" ave"i?ted ?rom u"in) te >-Q" centralied, national DN databa"e networ to a)rowin) number o? unre)ulated local databa"e"$ n1 +e"e databa"e" operateout"ide o? ?ederal law" and rule" tat )overn law en?orcementQ" u"e o? te

>-Q" national DN databa"e networ$ " a re"ult o? ti" re)ulatory void,police department" ave pu"ed te boundarie" o? )enetic surveillance,u"in) it in way" not previou"ly permitted$ n2 +e a))re""ive u"e o? localdataba"e" a" elped police to increa"e clearance rate" and decrea"e crimerate"$ n% ut te "tory i" not all po"itive$ +e expan"ion o? ti" surveillancetool at te local level a" unlea"ed "i)niFcant ne)ative ?orce" tat treatenprivacy and di)nity intere"t", exacerbate racial ineIuitie" in te criminal

Hu"tice "y"tem, and undermine te le)itimacy o? law en?orcement$

Even state laws can=t control it, and it=s ree ro# ederallaw

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1'%

+i" rticle mae" tree claim"$ >ir"t, cuttin)/ed)e )enetic surveillancei""ue" are playin) out on te local level, ?ree ?rom ?ederal re)ulation ando?ten in te ab"ence o? "tate or local law"$ n' econd, ti" rticle re"pond" toPro?e""or !acel =armonQ" callen)e to "colar" to elp law en?orcemente"tabli" Oarm/eRcient policin)O practice" by identi?yin) and mea"urin)external arm" )enerated by policin) tat are not captured by law

en?orcementQ" narrow ?ocu" on "olvin) crime$

@ocal data$ases ree ro# Cra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1''

2%
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdf


24/103


+e expan"ion o? locally/controlled DN databa"e" ?ollow" two decade" o??ederal over"i)t o? law en?orcementQ" u"e o? )enetic surveillance$ ince1', wen #on)re"" autoried te creation o? a national networ o? DNdataba"e" commonly re?erred to a" #CD-, n. te >- a" over"een wat a"become one o? te lar)e"t )enetic surveillancetool" in te world$ n8 #CD-

include" DN proFle" ?rom over 1'$% million nown individual" and ?rom over25,000 crime "cene "ample"$ n -t a" been built wit million" o? dollar" o??ederal ?undin), n10 and law en?orcement oRcial" and politician" routinelyadvocate ?or it" expan"ion$ n11 #CD- a" "urvived every le)al callen)e ita" ?aced$ n12 nd it a" delivered many law en?orcement victorie"$ n1%Nonetele"", many local a)encie" ave turned away ?rom #CD- to e"tabli"teir own local databa"e"$ n1'

@ocal data$ases worse than Cra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1''

+e external arm" o? local databa"e" ari"e ?rom te )ul? between ow lawen?orcement i" permitted to u"e #CD- and te wild we"t o? )eneticsurveillancepractice" currently permitted wit local databa"e"$ n2% >orexample, lie #CD-, local databa"e" include )enetic proFle" ?rom convictedindividual" and arre"tee"$ =owever, local databa"e" al"o o?ten include)enetic proFle" o? "u"pect" Aincludin) Huvenile "u"pect"B, witne""e", crimevictim", ?amily member" o? victim", and citien" wo re"ponded to policeDN dra)net", wic "ometime" ?ollow violent, un"olved crime"$

>urtermore, local a)encie" are ?ree to "earc te"e databa"e" owever tey"ee Ft, uncon"trained by te limitation" )overnin) #CD- adopted by#on)re"" n2' and te additional re)ulation" te >- promul)ated ?or #CD-$n25 " a re"ult, local databa"e" ampli?y "ome o? te "ame external arm")enerated by #CD- wile "imultaneou"ly )eneratin) new one"$

@ocal data$ases targeted at people o color

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(

11/12/15, p$ 1'.

+e"e arm" include exacerbatin) racial ineIuitie", treatenin) privacy anddi)nity intere"t", and underminin) te le)itimacy o? law en?orcement$ 3ilelocal databa"e" ave te potential to miti)ate "ome o? te racial ineIuitie" inte criminal Hu"tice "y"tem by replacin) police reliance on intuition andunce" wit more reliable inve"ti)ative lead" ba"ed on DN evidence, n2local databa"e" increa"e di"tributional ineIuitie" becau"e local police ave

2'
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdf


25/103


total di"cretion about wo to tar)et ?or inclu"ion in te"e databa"e"$ +i" a"re"ulted in police "eein) out te Ou"ual "u"pect"O / poor people o? color / to"ecure DN "ample" ?or te"e databa"e"$

@ocal data$ases trigger all the har#s

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1'.

+e"e databa"e" treaten privacy and di)nity intere"t" in "everal way"$ 3itre"pect to privacy, tey increa"e "urveillance on innocent, law/abidin)citien", expand te u"e o? ?amilial DN "earcin), and ave te potential tolimit "el?/expre""ion and "el?/determination ?or tar)eted individual"$ n28>urtermore, tey impo"e di)nity co"t" in te "ort and lon) term$ -mmediateindi)nity and "ti)ma accompany bein) "topped by police in public to provide

a DN "ample$ n2 nd tere i" te lon)/term di)nity co"t wen te"e "top"communicate tat "omeone need" to be watced / not becau"e e or "ewa" arre"ted or convicted, but ba"ed on law en?orcementQ" belie? tat e or"e will be a ?uture criminal$ #ollectively, te"e co"t" carry te potential toundermine te le)itimacy o? law en?orcement$

@ocal data$ases operate outside o ederal control


11/12/15, p$ 1'8/

" local a)encie" circumvent te ?ederal re)ulation" tat )overn #CD- bycreatin) teir own databa"e", le)i"lature" and court" ave remained aloo?,allowin) te"e databa"e" to evolve wit little over"i)t$ =owever, teexternal co"t" )enerated by local databa"e" demon"trate te need ?orre)ulation$ +e current reliance on "el?/re)ulation i" not "uRcient$ 7awen?orcementQ" "ucce"" i" commonly mea"ured by a narrow ?ocu" on crimerate" and clearance rate"$ " a re"ult, police cie?" lac incentive" to identi?yand mea"ure external co"t" o? "urveillance practice"$ n%1 #urrent externalre)ulation" o? )enetic "urveillance are al"o in"uRcient$ +e va"t maHority o?local databa"e" operate out"ide o? ?ederal and "tate "tatutory re)ulation"$

n%2 >urtermore, te"e databa"e" operate lar)ely beyond te reac o? te>ourt mendment becau"e o? teir exten"ive reliance on obtainin) DN"ample" by con"ent or ?rom abandoned DN$ n%% +i" ?reedom ?romre)ulation wa" welcomed by early adopter" o? local databa"e"$ -t wa" adrivin) ?orce beind teir creation$ n%' =owever, even proponent" o? localdataba"e" reco)nie te value in embracin) "ome external re)ulation$

25


26/103


@ocal agencies don=t even use Cra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1501/2

Early adopter" o? local DN databa"e" ave pointed to two rea"on" wy#CD- doe" not adeIuately meet teir need"$ >ir"t, tey ar)ue tat te#CD- autoriin) "tatute and te >-Q" re)ulation" ?or it" u"e are toore"trictive, preventin) law en?orcement ?rom per?ormin) certain "earce" and?rom includin) DN proFle" ?rom certain individual" in #CD-$ n'' econd,tey ar)ue tat becau"e muc o? #CD-Q" )rowt i" te re"ult o? addin) DNproFle" ?rom nown violent o:ender" wo are o?ten "ervin) len)ty pri"on"entence", #CD- remain" an ine:ective crime/"olvin) tool$

+e >- a" adopted an exten"ive re)ulatory "ceme ?or #CD-, n'5 and itre)ularly audit" participatin) public crime laboratorie" to en"ure compliance$n' +e"e re)ulation" are de"i)ned to en"ure te databa"e i" reliable and"ecured$ n'. >or example, te >- will only allow te inclu"ion and "earc o?DN proFle" i? te proFle" were proce""ed by public DN laboratorie" tat area part o? te #CD- networ$ n'8 econd, ?ederal re)ulation" proibitinclu"ion in #CD- o? many type" o? partial DN proFle", n' and limit lawen?orcementQ" ability to compare a partial proFle to te oter proFle" in#CD-$ n50 +ird, te proce"" o? conFrmin) a matc in #CD- can tae up toone mont, n51 and ti" i" in addition to te "ix to twelve mont" o?tenneeded ?or te actual DN proce""in) at #CD-/participatin) laboratorie"$n52 >ourt, ?ederal re)ulation" reIuire te removal o? proFle" ?rom #CD- i? aconvicted o:enderQ" conviction i" overturned, or, in te ca"e o? an arre"tee, i?te car)e" are di"mi""ed$ n5% >inally, a" a re"ult o? it" empa"i" on buildin)a databa"e o? convicted o:ender" and arre"tee", te >-Q" re)ulation"proibit te inclu"ion o? DN proFle" ?rom individual", includin) "u"pect",wo provide law en?orcement wit con"en"ual DN "ample"$ n5'

@ocal DNA data$ases don=t have to co#pl% with ederalregulations


11/12/15, p$ 150%

7ocal DN databa"e" are not reIuired to comply wit any o? te"e ?ederalre)ulation"$ >or example, tey are ?ree to include con"en"ual DN "ample"?rom people deemed merely "u"piciou", victim", victim"Q ?amily member",and witne""e"$ +e"e con"en"ual "ample" ave driven te )rowt o? localdataba"e"$ n55 7ocal DN databa"e" are al"o built wit DN proce""in) ?romprivate laboratorie"$ n5 >urtermore, local law en?orcement i" ?ree to "et it"own protocol" ?or includin) and "earcin) partial DN proFle" in teir

2


27/103


databa"e" and ?or expun)in) DN record"$ n5. dopter" ar)ue tat localdataba"e" are more eRcient, providin) it conFrmation" witin day" o?"ubmittin) DN "ample" to te laboratory a" oppo"ed to tain) "ix mont" toa year, wic i" common wen dealin) wit #CD-$ n58

@ocal DNA data$ases lead to disproportionate surveillanceo people o color

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 152/.

De"pite te"e po""ible miti)atin) ?actor", tere are "everal potential ne)ativeimplication" ?or people o? color tat may re"ult ?rom te expan"ion o? localdataba"e"$ colar" ave ?ocu"ed on ow #CD- di"proportionately monitor"poor people and people o? color$ n1. +ey ave al"o ob"erved ow police"urveillance tecniIue", in )eneral, o?ten impo"e co"t" on people wopo""e"" te lea"t "ocial and political power$ n18 >or example, in analyin)te protection" te >ourt mendment provide", Pro?e""or tunt concluded(

+e problem i" not Hu"t tat te police may tend to be more care?ul wen"earcin) middle/cla"" omeowner" tan re"ident" o? poor citynei)borood"$ +e lar)er problem i" tat te police may be more liely to"earc te latter becau"e te law protect" te ?ormer "o well$ nd becau"e"uc a lar)e portion o? de?endant" come ?rom poor city nei)borood",le)i"lature", pro"ecutor", and Hud)e" may Fnd it ea"ier to impri"on ever moreo? tem$ n1 "imilar dynamic will liely re"ult ?rom law en?orcementQ" u"e o? local

databa"e"$+e racial di"paritie" tat re"ult ?rom te u"e o? local databa"e" are drivenbot by te "ame ?actor" tat drive te racial di"paritie" in #CD-, n200 andby oter ?actor" uniIue to local databa"e"$ +e ?actor" tat contribute to tedi"paritie" in #CD- are well documented$ n201 >or example, in oppo"in)e:ort" to include DN proFle" ?rom arre"tee" in #CD-, Pro?e""or" ErinMurpy and randon 9arrett ar)ued tat becau"e o? te Oracial di"paritie" inarre"t rate"O "uc a practice Owill mean includin) di"proportionate amount" o?)enetic in?ormation ?rom ?rican/merican" and =i"panic" a" compared tooter )roup"$O n202

+e ?actor" uniIue to local databa"e" ave not received te "ame attention$>or example, te inclu"ion o? DN proFle" ?rom "u"pect", not Hu"t to"earre"ted or convicted o? crime", )ive" local law en?orcement oRcial"tremendou" di"cretion in buildin) teir local databa"e"$ " ti" di"cretion)row", te lieliood tat ne)ative "tereotype" will play a prominent role inte"e databa"e" increa"e"$ n20% +e concern tat di"cretion can lead to

2.
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdfhttp://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/10/KREAG.pdf


28/103


racial imbalance" in local databa"e" i" not Hu"t a teoretical concern$ Gonlacled)e, te arcitect o? Palm ayQ" databa"e, advi"e" law en?orcementa)encie" "eein) to develop local databa"e" to "tart by collectin) "ample"?rom any and all individual" wo police "u"pect are involved in criminalactivity$ n20' +i" doe" not nece""arily imply tat local DN databa"e" willbe populated in a racially di"proportionate manner$ =owever, i? te "tartin)

point ?or buildin) tem i" individual oRcer" tar)etin) people tey "u"pect areinvolved in criminal activity, it i" liely tat te"e oRcer" willdi"proportionately turn to te Ou"ual "u"pect",O wic overwelmin)ly includepoor people and people o? color$ n205

mallPondQ" bu"ine"" model relie" on a "imilar a""umption about te abilityo? police to "ucce""?ully tar)et "e)ment" o? te local population ?rom womto collect DN "ample"$ +o mae te ca"e to potential new client" tat a localdataba"e can provide Iuic re"ult" even i? an a)ency "tart" wit ero proFle",mallPond ired a ?ormer police oRcer a" it" "ale"per"on$ n20 =i" ar)umentto new client" i" tat local police Oba"ically now woQ" committin) tecrime"$ -t i" a "mall percenta)e o? te population tat commit" te maHority

o? te bur)larie"$O n20. 3it tat nowled)e, te ar)ument )oe", local policecan "ecure con"en"ual or abandoned DN "ample" ?rom to"e individual",wic in turn will "tart to )enerate databa"e it" Iuicly$ 7e?t un"tated i" owte police OnowO wo i" committin) te crime", and it i" in tat un"tateda""umption were preHudice" and "tereotype" lur$

@ocal DNA data$ases threaten privac%


11/12/15, p$ 152/%0

9iven ow law en?orcement u"e" local databa"e", te expan"ion o? ti""urveillance tool al"o repre"ent" a new treat to privacy di:erent in de)reeand "cope ?rom te burden on privacy #CD- )enerate"$ -t i" di:erent in"cope becau"e te"e databa"e" will expand te portion o? te populationunder surveillance$ n208 -t i" di:erent in de)ree becau"e to"e individual"wo ave already ?aced te burden" o? oter police surveillancetecniIue"/ "top/and/?ri" or oter in?ormal police/citien encounter" / will now be a"edto provide con"en"ual DN "ample", allowin) law en?orcement to reac evendeeper into teir live"$ n20 +i" ection identiFe" and analye" te privacyintru"ion" local databa"e" rai"e$

Cne re"ult o? te expan"ion o? local databa"e" i" tat tere will be increa"edsurveillanceo? innocent people / individual" wo ave not committed acrime and wo will mo"t liely not commit crime" in te ?uture$ +i" i" "obecau"e many local databa"e" include proFle" not Hu"t ?rom arre"tee" andconvicted individual", but ?rom victim", witne""e", and any per"on lawen?orcement tar)et" wo con"ent" to providin) a "ample$ n210 Undoubtedly,"ome o? te"e individual" will ultimately be lined to a pa"t or ?uture crime$

28


29/103


6et, te maHority o? te"e individual" will never be te "ubHect o? a DN it$>urtermore, i? law en?orcementQ" u"e o? local databa"e" ?ollow" te pattern"o? oter surveillancetecniIue", people o? color will di"proportionately ?eelti" increa"ed surveillanceo? innocent people$ n211colar" ave criticied over/inclu"ive surveillancetecniIue" tat "coop uplar)e number" o? innocent people in order to identi?y te ?ew actual

o:ender"$ n212 ome "colar" ave propo"ed teoretical "ceme" to limitpolice activitie" tat are over/inclu"ive in order to curb te arm" borne byinnocent people$ n21% =owever, te"e "ceme" are in ten"ion wit te verypremi"e o? local databa"e"$ +e"e databa"e" are de"i)ned wit tea""umption tat tey will ultimately include a lar)e number o? DN proFle"?rom people wo will never be lined to a crime$ 7aw en?orcement oRcial"accept ti" outcome in excan)e ?or te better odd" tat a lar)er databa"ewill yield more it" to actual perpetrator"$ n21'

ome will ar)ue tat tere i" no, or at be"t only a very "mall, privacydeprivation tat re"ult" ?rom addin) DN proFle" o? innocent, law/abidin)people to local databa"e", concludin) tat becau"e te"e people will not

commit crime" in te ?uture teir privacy intere"t" are not dimini"ed$ >or avariety o? rea"on", - di"a)ree$ >ir"t, DN matce" in local DN databa"e" willnot only identi?y potential perpetrator" o? criminal activity, tey al"o ave tepotential to i)li)t innocent, but i)ly per"onal and*or embarra""in)in?ormation$ n215 >or example, te u"e o? ?amilial "earce", a commonpractice ?or local databa"e", a" te potential to identi?y previou"ly unnownbiolo)ical relation"ip"$ n21 imilarly, wen police arrive at te "cene o? abur)lary and a" te victim and er ?amily to provide DN "ample" ?orelimination purpo"e", te victim mi)t be ?orced to tell te police tat "ewa" avin) an a:air, and wit wom "e wa" avin) an a:air, "o a" toeliminate te po""ibility tat er a:air partner i" accu"ed o? te bur)lary$

-n addition, tere i" te ri" tat awarene"" o? oneQ" DN proFle bein)included in a local databa"e will alter beavior and limit "el?/expre""ion$ +o becertain, alterin) beavior i" one o? te "tated )oal" o? DN databa"e" and allpolice "urveillance activitie"$ n218 Proponent" and court" empa"ie teability o? DN databa"e" to deter crime$ n21 =owever, lie oter"urveillance tecniIue", )enetic "urveillance carrie" te potential to alterinnocent beavior, curb unpopular beavior, and limit political anda""ociational ?reedom$ -n te "ummer o? 2012, te N6PDQ" u"e o? it" localdataba"e durin) te Cccupy 3all treet prote"t" demon"trated ow )enetic"urveillance can cill political activity$ n220 +e N6PD collected DN ?rom acain tat it believed prote"tor" u"ed, and it Iuicly compared te DN toproFle" ?rom oter un"olved crime" in te N6PD databa"e$ n221 3en teproFle ?rom te cain matced to an un"olved murder, te new" linin) anCccupy Prote"ter to a prior murder Iuicly )ripped te national media$ n222=owever, almo"t a" Iuicly a" te "en"ational "tory broe, te N6PDadmitted tat te purported matc wa" te re"ult o? a lab error$ n22% +ea))re""ive u"e o? DN analy"i" at te "cene o? one o? te prote"t" and te?act tat te purported lin to a murder wa" leaed "o Iuicly promptedcritici"m o? te N6PDQ" practice"$ Pro?e""or David Kaye explained(

2


30/103


3atQ" intere"tin) i" tain) Jte DN ?rom a cain tat "o many people couldave touced and ten runnin) tat trou) te databa"e o? crime/"cene"ample" $$$ $ - )ue"" tatQ" creative$ +eyQre eiter very committed to Fndin)clue", no matter ow wea, or teyQre out to )et a )roup o? people$ n22'-n addition to cillin) political expre""ion, te expan"ion o? )enetic

"urveillance carrie" te potential ?or more in"idiou" inva"ion" o? privacy$Pro?e""or Kimberly ailey a" caracteried ow on)oin) and compreen"ivepolice "urveillance Oa" a cillin) e:ect on poor people o? colorQ" "el?/determination, "el?/expre""ion, and ?reedom o? a""ociation$O n225 -n moreconcrete term", te expan"ion o? )enetic "urveillance will a:ect routine dailydeci"ion", "uc a" weter to "pend time out"ide wit ?riend" and wicroute to tae to "cool or wor "o a" to minimie te opportunity ?or anunwelcome encounter wit te police$

7ocal databa"e" al"o pre"ent new privacy treat" becau"e tey promi"e toexpand te u"e o? ?amilial DN "earce"$ n22. uc "earce", wic areper?ormed a?ter law en?orcement ?ail to Fnd an exact matc to a nown

individual, o:er law en?orcement te ?allbac o? tryin) to identi?y a ?amilymember o? te actual perpetrator$ n228 rmed wit te identiFcation o? a?amily member, law en?orcement can pur"ue te ?amily member to identi?yte actual "ource o? te crime/"cene DN$ #urrently, #CD- re"trict" lawen?orcementQ" u"e o? ?amilial "earce"$ n22 Many "tate" ave al"o adoptedlaw" proibitin) "uc "earce"$ n2%0 =owever, in te "tate" werelawmaer" ave remained "ilent on ti" i""ue, local databa"e" ave tecapability o? per?ormin) ?amilial "earce"$ n2%1 -ndeed, te ability to per?orm?amilial "earcin) i" one o? te rea"on" wy te riona Department o? Publica?ety developed it" non/#CD- databa"e$

+e expan"ion o? local DN databa"e" al"o brin)" into "arper ?ocu" te ?ear"many privacy advocate" rai"ed about #CD-$ -n "ort, tey ?eared tat oncete >-Q" DN databa"e wa" created, it would be too temptin) ?or lawen?orcement to be able to limit it" u"e, cau"in) te tool to evolve and reacdeeper into our live"$ n2%% #CD-Q" )rowt demon"trate" te merit o? te"e?ear"$ #CD- expanded ?rom an initial ?ocu" on collectin) proFle" ?romo:ender" convicted o? certain violent crime", to includin) all ?elony o:ender",to now includin) all arre"tee"$ n2%' imilarly, a?ter Fr"t proibitin) ?amilial"earce", #CD- now permit" tem in certain circum"tance"$ n2%5 +e"eadvocate" al"o ?ear wat mi)t come next, wen tecnolo)y allow" u" to)lean even more in?ormation ?rom an individualQ" DN "ample$ n2% +ey areparticularly ?ear?ul o? te po""ibility tat law en?orcement mi)t u"e )enetic"ample" to attempt to identi?y a )enetic predi"po"ition to crime$ n2%.

>inally, te expan"ion o? local databa"e" will contribute ?urter to te ero"iono? privacy protection", to te extent tat people come to expect increa"ed"urveillance$ >ourt mendment privacy protection i" lined to "ocietyQ"rea"onable expectation" o? privacy$ n2%8 " many ave noted, ti" "tandardi" Luid, but it a" i"torically moved in te direction o? "ociety acceptin)le""er privacy protection"$ 7aw en?orcementQ" expan"ion o? )enetic

%0


31/103


"urveillance a" contributed to ti" trend, and te trend will continue a" itbecome" routine ?or even "mall a)encie" to build local databa"e"$

@ocal DNA data$ases threaten dignit%

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 15%%/'

+e expan"ion o? local databa"e" rai"e" important i""ue" about individual"Qdi)nity intere"t" and wat role, i? any, policin) practice" "ould play inre"pectin) te"e intere"t"$ +e view o? many oRcial" wo promote localdataba"e" i" tat te databa"e" promote di)nity intere"t" / cieLy trou)elpin) to en"ure per"onal "a?ety and protectin) our property by eRcientlyidenti?yin) criminal"$ n2% +i" i" true, but it i" only a partial trut$ 3at a"not been explored and ?ully con"idered are te di)nity intere"t" o? to"e

tar)eted ?or inclu"ion in te databa"e$ n2'0 +o te extent tat te"edataba"e" are di"proportionately compo"ed o? people ?rom "ocioeconomicallymar)inalied )roup", it i" not "urpri"in) tat oRcial" ave not con"ideredte"e di)nity intere"t"$ n2'1 +i" ection aim" to remedy tat "ortcomin)$

+e "peciFc treat to di)nity intere"t" tat local databa"e" rai"e exi"t" on twolevel" / one immediate and te oter le"" direct, tou) perap" moredama)in) and la"tin)$ >ir"t, tere i" te immediate indi)nity in te policepublicly "toppin) a per"on and a"in) im or er to con"ent to providin) abuccal "wab$ -n tat moment, de"pite law en?orcementQ" attempt to en"uretat it only collect" DN "ample" trou) con"ent, police exert "i)niFcantpower over te tar)eted citien$ n2'2 >urtermore, te "top it"el? can "i)nal

to oter" tat te tar)eted citien i" "omeone te police view a" a potentialtreat, and ti" "i)nal can carry a la"tin) "ti)ma in "ociety$ n2'% 3ile te"ti)ma o? law en?orcement publicly identi?yin) a per"on a" a criminal "u"pectexi"t" in many police/citien encounter" / e$)$, any arre"t / te e:ect o? ti""ti)ma i" ar)uably wor"e in te context o? local DN databa"e", becau"e lawen?orcement oRcial" o?ten "ee con"en"ual "ample" ?rom individual" woave not been arre"ted, convicted, or even implicated in any "peciFc crime$!ater, police tar)et individual" ba"ed on a di:erent, le"" articulable, andlower, level o? "u"picion$

+e "econd di)nity intere"t local databa"e" undermine i" bot more "eriou"and more diRcult to mea"ure$ -t a" to do wit te implicit Aor "ometime"explicitB me""a)e a police oRcer "end" wen "e reIue"t" a con"en"ual"ample ?or inclu"ion in a local databa"e$ +e me""a)e i" not, Owe are all inti" to)eter$ 3e are )aterin) everyoneQ" DN$O !ater, te me""a)e i", O-identiFed you a" a potential ?uture criminal$ 3e need your DN on Fle,?orever, to be able to catc you wen you mo"t a""uredly act on your criminalin"tinct"$O Even i? our ability to predict ?uture criminal beavior improve"dramatically, ti" me""a)e carrie" te potential ?or perver"e and la"tin)e:ect" on citien" tar)eted by police$ n2''

%1


32/103


-mportantly, ti" me""a)e can al"o ne)atively impact te abit" o? police$Pro?e""or David lan"y a" ob"erved ti" in te context o? oRcer" worepeatedly invade citien"Q privacy intere"t", a pro"pect tat "eem" Iuiteapplicable to te populatin) o? local databa"e"$ n2'5 Pro?e""or lan"yteorie"( Privacy violation" are arm?ul not "olely becau"e o? teir e:ect" on

te victim", but al"o, and maybe mo"tly, becau"e o? te abit" and way" o?tinin) tey en)rain in te violator"$$$ $ Juc violation" can trainindividual" and or)aniation" in abit" o? deumaniation anddeper"onaliation$ n2'colar" ave criticied oter a"pect" o? te criminal Hu"tice "y"tem tatcau"e "imilar arm" in identi?yin) te potential wron)doer a" "omeone witreduced di)nity intere"t"$ n2'. >or example, in te parole context, Pro?e""or#ecelia Klin)ele warn" tat our "y"tem rein?orce" divi"ive a""umption" tatto"e implicated in te criminal Hu"tice "y"tem are inerently di:erent and,perap", le"" uman tan people wo ave not been arre"ted or convicted$

+e expanded u"e o? local DN databa"e" carrie" te potential to do te

"ame tin)$

Existing regulation o local DNA data$ases is not sucient

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 15'%/'

=avin) ar)ued ?or te need ?or external re)ulation o? local databa"e", it i"nece""ary to explore wo i" capable o? re)ulatin) ti" tool and weter

exi"tin) external re)ulation" are "uRcient$ +i" ection demon"trate" tat#on)re"" and court" ave been inte)ral in re)ulatin) #CD-, owever te"ere)ulation" do not reac local databa"e"$ +u", new re)ulation" are needed$

+ere i" a "i)niFcant debate amon) "colar" and in te court" about wicre)ulatory body / le)i"lature" or court" / i" more capable o? re)ulatin) police"urveillance tecniIue", particularly wen te tecniIue" involve evolvin)tecnolo)y$ ome advocate ?or court" to be te main "ource o? re)ulation$Cter" empa"ie te virtue" o? le)i"lative re)ulation$ n22 nd "till oter"recommend a ybrid approac$ n2% Notably, #CD- i" re)ulated trou) anOinterbranc dialo)ue,O n2' relyin) on "el?/impo"ed limit" adopted by te>-, n25 ?ederal "tatute", n2 and te upreme #ourt$ n2. -n contra"t tote comparatively exten"ive re)ulation o? #CD-, local databa"e" ave)enerated very ?ew re)ulation"$ n28 nd con"titutional provi"ion", includin)te privacy intere"t" protected by te >ourt mendment, do not reac lawen?orcementQ" u"e o? local databa"e" in mo"t in"tance"$

%2


33/103


enetic Surveillance A-

%%


34/103


enetic Surveillance Solvenc% !!! A'(State)@ocal

States and locals depend on ederal unds

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1505/

ecau"e local, non/#CD- databa"e" are in "ome way" duplicative o? #CD-,it i" rea"onable to pre"ume tat even i? te"e databa"e" ad "tron) "upport?rom law en?orcement oRcial", teir expan"ion would be limited by co"t/con"ciou" local )overnment oRcial" not ea)er to ?und tem$ +i" a" notbeen te ca"e, in part, becau"e "ome local databa"e" ave been "upported

by ?ederal, not local ?und"$ n8 -t i" ironic tat a?ter allocatin) "uc a"i)niFcant amount o? money to develop #CD-, n te ?ederal )overnmenti" ?undin) non/#CD- databa"e" tat are at lea"t potential rival" to te #CD-networ$ n.0 More importantly, ?ederal ?undin) a" allowed local a)encie" tobypa"" te local bud)et proce"" and te limitation" it impo"e" on oter lawen?orcement "urveillance tecniIue"$

+e primary "ource" o? ?ederal ?undin) ?or local DN databa"e" are te?ederal ?or?eiture law" tat return money to local law en?orcement oRcial" inexcan)e ?or teir participation in ?ederal ta" ?orce"$ n.2 +e"e law" allowte Department o? Gu"tice to "are te proceed" o? "eied property wit locala)encie" tat Oparticipated directly in te "eiure or ?or?eiture o? te

property$O n.% 7ocal law en?orcement a)encie" ave come to depend on ti"revenue "tream, n.' and it a" been crucial to te evolution o? local DNdataba"e"$ >or example, re"ource" ?rom ?ederal ?or?eiture law" ?ully ?und telocal databa"e in en"alem +own"ip, and local oRcial" view ti" a" a reliable"ource o? ?und" ?or te ?ore"eeable ?uture$ n.5 3itout ti" revenue "tream,it i" unliely tat local databa"e" would ave developed a" Iuicly a" teyave$

%'


35/103


eneral Privac%)Surveillance

%5


36/103


eneral Privac% Solvenc% Answers

overn#ent restrictions on its own surveillance doesn=tstop the govern#ent ro# $u%ing the inor#ation

Ga"on Krea), ""ociate Pro?e""or, Univer"ity o? riona, Cctober 2015, o"tonUniver"ity 7aw !eview, 9oin) 7ocal( +e >ra)mentation o? 9eneticurveillance, ttp(**www$bu$edu*bulawreview*Fle"*2015*10*K!E9$pd?DC(11/12/15, p$ 1520/1

#urrent >ourt mendment doctrine / in particular te principle" o? te tird/party doctrine n1% / allow" law en?orcement to beneFt ?rom te va"t amounto? in?ormation te public voluntarily "are" wit private companie"$ n1' +i"a" led "ome "colar" to conclude tat law en?orcement will re"pond byalterin) teir "urveillance practice"$ Pro?e""or Paul Cm predict" tat Oa" te"urveillance "ociety expand", te police will learn to rely more on te

product" o? private "urveillance, and will "i?t teir time, ener)y, and moneyaway ?rom traditional "el?/elp policin), becomin) pa""ive con"umer" ratertan active producer" o? "urveillance$O n15 Pro?e""or CmQ" in"tinct" arecorrect about certain type" o? "urveillance activitie"$ -t "eem" liely tatpolice will be inclined to u"e in?ormation ama""ed by private "ource",decrea"in) te need ?or law en?orcement to conduct duplicative "urveillance$

%


37/103


Corporate Privac% ProtectionCounterplan

%.


38/103


CP Corporations Can Protect Custo#erData)Not Share it 0ith the overn#ent

Corporations can reuse to share custo#er data with the

govern#ent

Kayla !obin"on, enHamin N$ #ardoo cool o? 7aw, 2015, Guly 2015,#orporate !i)t" and -ndividual -ntere"t"( +e #orporate !i)t to Privacy a" aulwar )ain"t 3arrantle"" 9overnment urveillance,ttp(**www$cardoolawreview$com*content*%/*!C-NCN$%$$pd?, p$ 2285/8

+i" lea a" al"o prompted con"ideration o? two >ourt mendmentdoctrine" tat limit con"titutional privacy protection"( te Otird/partyO andOnon/content"O doctrine"$ n12 Under te tird/party doctrine, in?ormationvoluntarily di"clo"ed to tird partie" / even i? only intended ?or a limited

purpo"e, and witout an individualQ" actual nowled)e / i" pre"umptivelyexempt ?rom >ourt mendment protection"$ n1% Under te related non/content" rule, court" di"tin)ui" between te content o? communication",wic i" u"ually con"titutionally protected, and te in?ormation u"ed in orcreated by te tran"mi""ion o? tat content / "uc a" a pone number or teroutin) in?ormation u"ed to deliver an email / wic i" pre"umptively not$n1' 3en interpreted expan"ively, te"e doctrine" e:ectively evi"cerate anindividualQ" ri)t to privacy in an -PQ" record" and allow te )overnmentun?ettered warrantle"" acce""$ n15 0hile it appears settled thatindividuals cannot assert a constitutional right to privac% in 9non!contents9 #etadata, or in inor#ation that has $een 9voluntaril%9shared with a corporation, n it re#ains to $e seen whether a

corporation could assert its own constitutional privac% rights toshield these records ro# warrantless govern#ent surveillance 5uca doctrinal development could clo"e te )ap in privacy protection" le?t by>ourt mendment exception" tat aro"e be?ore te advent o? te -nternet$*he Ro$erts Court has de#onstrated its inclination to recogniFeexpanded rights or corporations$ -n #itien" United v$ >ederal Election#ommi""ion, n1. te upreme #ourt eld tat te >ir"t mendment bar" te>ederal 9overnment ?rom curtailin) core political "peec ba"ed on te"peaerQ" corporate ?orm$ n18 +e idea o? te corporation a" a bearer o?con"titutional ri)t" did not ori)inate in #itien" United, but it appear" toave been )iven new li?e by te #ourtQ" deci"ion$ n1 >urtermore, altou)te upreme #ourt eld in >ederal #ommunication" #ommi""ion v$ +&+, -nc$

n20 tat corporation" do not ave Oper"onalO privacy ri)t" ?or purpo"e" o?te >reedom o? -n?ormation ct, te #ourt pointedly re"erved Hud)ment onte corporationQ" con"titutional ri)t to privacy$>urter, the #ost recent word on corporate rights ro# the Supre#eCourt, 6urwell v5 7o$$% @o$$% Stores, -nc$, n22 signaled the Court;swillingness to recogniFe #ore 9personal9 rights or corporations5

Gu"tice lito, writin) ?or te maHority, eld tat te term Oper"onO in te!eli)iou" >reedom and !e"toration ct o? 1% A!>!B extended to te

%8
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-6/ROBINSON.36.6.pdfhttp://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-6/ROBINSON.36.6.pdf


39/103


plainti:"( clo"ely eld, ?or/proFt corporation"$ n2% +ere?ore, accordin) to te#ourtQ" analy"i", corporation" enHoy te ei)tened ?ree exerci"e protection"o:ered by !>!$ n2'7o$$% @o$$%, A*&*, and CitiFens United/ to)eter wit a number o?oter ca"e" / indicate that corporations #a% $e a$le to shield theircusto#ers; inor#ation ro# warrantless govern#ent surveillance $%

protecting their own privac% interests in this inor#ation5 n25 3ilete con"titutional ri)t to privacy evolved cieLy in te context o? anindividualQ" privacy ri)t", n2 corporation" can old oter individual ri)t"tat are con"titutional in nature$ n2. >urter, altou) -nternet u"er" may notbe able to protect teir in?ormation due to >ourt mendment exception",tere i" a re"idual privacy intere"t in ti" in?ormation$ n28 A corporationhas a #aniest interest in protecting the private inor#ation o itscusto#ers due to the corporation;s own interest in protecting tradesecrets n'" and #aintaining good custo#er relations, and hence,pro+ts5 n.? *his Note argues that the corporate right to privac% +llsan existing gap in privac% rights( although under current doctrineusers do not have a 4ourth A#end#ent right to privac% in the

records the% generate, the corporations eeping these records do5Accordingl%, corporations can and should assert this li#ited,instru#ental right to privac% to orestall widespread, suspicionlessgovern#ent surveillance o online transactions$

Corporations have privac% rights

Kayla !obin"on, enHamin N$ #ardoo cool o? 7aw, 2015, Guly 2015,#orporate !i)t" and -ndividual -ntere"t"( +e #orporate !i)t to Privacy a" aulwar )ain"t 3arrantle"" 9overnment urveillance,ttp(**www$cardoolawreview$com*content*%/*!C-NCN$%$$pd?, p$ 225/

corporate ri)t to privacy i" an apparent a:ront to common "en"e, a" teintere"t" protected by privacy / "uc a" di)nity, autonomy, and emotional"ecurity / are )enerally conceived o? a" individual intere"t"$ n8 =owever, a"di"cu""ed in Part -, corporation" are uniIue le)al entitie" permitted toexerci"e per"onal ri)t"$ n0 >urtermore, privacy can be a" important ?oror)aniation" a" it i" ?or individual"$ n1 +e ability to "ield certain action"and in?ormation ?rom te public mae" it po""ible ?or or)aniation" to carryout te ?unction" ?or wic tey are ?ormed$ n2 -n te context o? bu"ine""or)aniation", te correlation between privacy and proFt" led to te?ormation o? trade "ecret" law", n% wic )overn te protection o?conFdential in?ormation tat con?er" a competitive advanta)e to tebu"ine""$ n' +ere i" demon"trable acceptance tat bu"ine""e" "ould bea:orded one" o? privacy, and altou) trade "ecret law doe" not deFne te"cope o? a corporationQ" con"titutional ri)t", n5 it lend" credence to teidea tat corporation", lie individual", "ould be "ielded by privacy ri)t" incertain "pere"$ +i" can in?orm te con"titutional limit" o? )overnmentintru"ion into a corporationQ" a:air"$

%


40/103


Corporations protected $% the 4ourth A#end#ent

Kayla !obin"on, enHamin N$ #ardoo cool o? 7aw, 2015, Guly 2015,#orporate !i)t" and -ndividual -ntere"t"( +e #orporate !i)t to Privacy a" aulwar )ain"t 3arrantle"" 9overnment urveillance,ttp(**www$cardoolawreview$com*content*%/*!C-NCN$%$$pd?, p$ 2%00/1

+e upreme #ourt a" eld ?or over a century tat corporation" aveco)niable >ourt mendment ri)t"( in =ale v$ =enel, n12. te #ourt ?ounda )rand Hury "ubpoena duce" tecum wa" too broad to be rea"onable, n128and tat te reIue"t ?or record" tere?ore impin)ed upon a corporationQ">ourt mendment ri)t"$ n12 +e #ourt rea"oned tat corporation" aremerely a""ociation" o? individual" wo do not waive teir con"titutional ri)t"by or)aniin) into te corporate ?orm$ n1%0 ltou) =ale involved a criminalinve"ti)ation, n1%1 te #ourt a" mo"t ?reIuently con"idered te >ourtmendmentQ" application to bu"ine""e" in te context o? te )overnmentQ"ri)t to conduct re)ulatory or admini"trative "earce" o? commercialproperty$ n1%2 3ile )enerally upoldin) re)ulatory "tatute" tat allow ?oradmini"trative "earce" o? commercial property, n1%% te #ourt a"con"i"tently eld tat commercial property i" protected by te >ourtmendment, and tat >ourt mendment ri)t" extend to corporation"$

Courts have held that corporations have privac% interests

Kayla !obin"on, enHamin N$ #ardoo cool o? 7aw, 2015, Guly 2015,#orporate !i)t" and -ndividual -ntere"t"( +e #orporate !i)t to Privacy a" aulwar )ain"t 3arrantle"" 9overnment urveillance,ttp(**www$cardoolawreview$com*content*%/*!C-NCN$%$$pd?, p$ 2%0%/'

Cne doe" not ave to "peculate about te >ourt mendmentQ" intan)ibleapplication to corporation"V "ince Kat, te #ourt a" eld tat corporation"ave con"titutionally co)niable privacy intere"t" under te rea"onableexpectation o? privacy "tandard$ n15 -n Dow #emical #o$ v$ United tate",n15. te upreme #ourt upeld a "tatute allowin) te EnvironmentalProtection )ency to tae aerial poto)rap" o? Dow #emicalQ" indu"trialplant complex$ n158 =owever, te #ourt reco)nied tat te corporation, notit" individual owner", ad a le)ally co)niable expectation o? privacy underte Kat ?ormulation$ n15 DowQ" >ourt mendment claim wa" reHected notba"ed on it" corporate ?orm, but rater on te ba"i" o? te Oopen Feld"Odoctrine$ n10 +e #ourt ?ound tat Dow ad an expectation o? privacy in"ome o? it" property tat "ociety wa" prepared to reco)nie a" rea"onable$n11 =owever, te #ourt declined to extend te deFnition o? te protectedcurtila)e, n12 a concept tied to an individualQ" dwellin), into te context o?commercial property$ n1% +u", u"in) te Kat rea"onable/expectation/o?/privacy te"t, te #ourt ?ound Dow ad a co)niable privacy intere"t, n1' butdue to te open Feld" exception it declined to cate)orie aerial surveillanceo? DowQ" outdoor property a" a >ourt mendment O"earc$O

'0
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-6/ROBINSON.36.6.pdfhttp://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-6/ROBINSON.36.6.pdfhttp://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-6/ROBINSON.36.6.pdfhttp://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/36-6/ROBINSON.36.6.pdf


41/103


Ruling that corporations can assert privac% interests inrecords solves privac% violations

Kayla !obin"on, enHamin N$ #ardoo cool o? 7aw, 2015, Guly 2015,#orporate !i)t" and -ndividual -ntere"t"( +e #orporate !i)t to Privacy a" aulwar )ain"t 3arrantle"" 9overnment urveillance,ttp(**www$cardoolawreview$com*content*%/*!C-NCN$%$$pd?, p$ 2%0/103atever te limit" o? teir ri)t to privacy, n210 corporation" "ould at

lea"t be able to a""ert a con"titutional ri)t to privacy in record" tat contain"en"itive in?ormation about teir cu"tomer"$ !eco)nition o? ti" ri)t wouldbe a boon ?or individual privacy ri)t" in li)t o? current surveillancepractice" o? te U$$ )overnment a" well a" te de)ree o? control "omecorporation" currently ave over te privacy o? individual"$ Moreover, it wouldbe con"i"tent wit te intere"t" o? te corporation" tem"elve"$

$ 9overnment SurveillanceUnder >- ection .02e)innin) in Gune o? 201%, a lea o? cla""iFed material brou)t to li)t

"everal clande"tine )overnment surveillancepro)ram", includin) a "ecurityinitiative trou) wic )overnment a)encie" collect dome"tic teleponemetadata$ n211 Cter recently revealed surveillancepro)ram", mo"tnotably te "o/called P!-M pro)ram, n212 are conducted pur"uant toection .02 o? te >orei)n -ntelli)ence Surveillancect A>-B$ +rou)te"e pro)ram", U$$ intelli)ence a)encie" collect data ?rom bot te "erver"o? -P" and te telecommunication" ObacboneO / te in?ra"tructure u"ed to"end telepone and -nternet communication"$ n21' 3en an analy"t want"to )ain acce"" to te record" o? a new tar)et under a ection .02 pro)ram,te reIue"t mu"t be reviewed by a "upervi"or wo aRrm" te analy"tQ"rea"onable belie? tat te propo"ed tar)et i" in ?act a ?orei)n national wo i"out"ide o? te country at te time te data i" bein) collected$ n215 Underte"e pro)ram", a )overnment analy"t may not intentionally tar)et( A1B aper"on nown to be in"ide te United tate"V n21 A2B a per"on rea"onablybelieved to be out"ide te United tate" i? te purpo"e i" actually to tar)et"omeone in te United tate"V n21. or A%B an merican citien locatedout"ide o? te United tate"$ n218 urveillance can la"t ?or only one year,n21 and te pro)ram i" "ubHect to te over"i)t o? te >orei)n -ntelli)enceurveillance #ourt A>-#B$ n220 >-# doe" not, owever, ave to approveindividual tar)et"$ n221 +e pre"ervation o? record" collected pur"uant toection .02 i" )overned by complex minimiation procedure" tat mu"t beperiodically approved by >-#$ n222

Even i? it a" been conducted in accordance wit >-, critic" ave ar)uedtat ection .02 pro)ram" are con"titutionally "u"pect becau"e tey permitte )overnment to conduct "urveillance and accumulate data witout Fr"tobtainin) individualied or particularied court order"$ n22% +e Pre"identQ"!eview 9roup on -ntelli)ence and #ommunication" +ecnolo)ie", an

'1


42/103


independent panel created in u)u"t 201%, conducted a review o? ection.02 "urveillance pro)ram" and concluded tat tey put merican"Qcommunication" at ri" o? inadvertent interception becau"e( A1B a U$$per"onQ" communication" can be collected i? tey are in contact wit a le)allytar)eted non/U$$ per"onV A2B it can be diRcult to tell i? a u"er i" a U$$ per"onba"ed on er communication"V and A%B te exception tat te

communication" o? nown U$$ per"on" may be retained i? tey containin?ormation o? O?orei)n intelli)ence valueO i" va)ue and Ocan ea"ily lead to tepre"ervation o? private in?ormation about even nown JU$$ per"on"$O n22'

-n addition to le)al Iue"tion" about te implementation o? certain"urveillance pro)ram", tere are "eriou" policy concern" intrin"ic to)overnment collection o? u"er/)enerate

surveillance update november 13

Documents