On March 28, 2009, the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment heard from law enforcement officials and advocacy group leaders about developing an effective domestic intelligence sharing network to prevent terror while building privacy and civil liberties protections into the system. In her opening remarks, Subcommittee Chair Jane Harman (D-CA) sought to strike a balance between “getting accurate, actionable, and timely” intelligence to our domestic criminal investigators and creating “clear definitions about what we are doing in this area, transparency and a process to hold people accountable.”
The hearing was separated into two panels; the first consisting of senior police officials from departments across the United States government and the second of civil liberty and technology advocacy group leaders. While both panels’ speakers were concerned about increasing security, the latter group expressed strong reservations about how and what data law enforcement agents would collect. They also cited examples of recent federal and state intelligence gathering activities that infringed on the rights of innocent people who may embrace uncommon or unpopular nonviolent ideology. Recommendations focused on the need for the committee to conduct a comprehensive review of changes in policies over time Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies said such a review is ” essential to evaluate the effectiveness and necessity of these changes and to recommend changes to make such activities more effective and less threatening to the balance of power between the government and the people.”
Calling for stronger data sharing between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and local police departments, Joan T. McNamara, the assistant commanding officer of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, and Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, both told the committee local police officers were no longer “first responders” but rather “first preventers.” McNamara added, “Local police were now considered an integral part of efforts to protect the nation from a variety of threats –including that posed by domestic and international terrorists.” Both officers called for closer relations during investigations and less red tape in obtaining and accepting security clearances between different agencies.
The speakers on the second panel expressed their concerns about stronger intelligence gathering bonds between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Gregory T. Nojeim, the Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Project on Freedom, Security and Technology, was apprehensive about the increase in data collected and stored by government agencies and their propensity to draw inaccurate or outright wrong conclusions. Nojeim said, “While stovepiping was yesterday’s problem, tomorrow’s problem may be pipe clogging, as huge amounts of information are being gathered without apparent focus.”
Nojeim said unregulated information collecting mechanisms could cast a net so wide that innocent people are unable to defend themselves against false accusations of terrorist activities. “For example, photographing bridges is described as a suspicious activity, even though such sites are regularly photographed by tourists, journalists and photography buffs.” He also gave three recent examples of “egregious” abuses by law enforcement agencies conducting surveillance on peaceful activities:
Supporting similar sentiments, Caroline Frederickson, Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, warned that intelligence does not equate with accuracy. She said, by its very nature, intelligence is often uncorroborated, inadequately vetted and fragmentary at best, and unreliable, misleading or just plain wrong at worst.” She believes the DHS conducting “a primarily domestic intelligence program” poses a risk “to civil liberties and the democratic process.” Citing the same abuses of unwarranted surveillance as Nojeim, Frederickson warned the committee, “Whenever the government is involved in gathering information about Americans without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, there is substantial risk of chilling lawful dissent and association.”
Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies, has done extensive examination of domestic surveillance and counterterrorism polices and their consequences. She agreed with the testimonies of Nojeim and Frederickson and even voiced a stronger opinion against domestic surveillance. “The legal authorities permitting collection of information on Americans have been expanded and the limitations and safeguards against abuse have been weakened,” said Martin. “Secrecy operates to make congressional oversight less vigorous…even though it is needed more. In addition, the Executive Branch has been very successful in arguing that judicial review of intelligence activities should be extremely deferential and limited, even when constitutional rights are at stake,” she added.