http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-criminal-law-reform-national-security-free-speech/senate-homeland
Last week, the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations issued a report
criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for its failure to
ensure proper oversight over state and local “fusion centers.” Shortly
thereafter, the committee issued a statement denouncing the report and lauding fusion centers as playing a “significant role in many recent terrorism cases.”
Fusion Centers are state-run collaborations of law enforcement and
other public agencies that collect information, including about private
citizens, which they then share with each other, with the federal
government, and often with the private sector. According to DHS’s
website, fusion centers are owned and operated by state and local
entities with support from federal partners in the form of deployed
personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security
clearances, connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant
funding. Yet DHS is unable to provide a clear picture of exactly how
much support it provides to any individual fusion center. They operate
largely outside of public view (the National Fusion Center Association’s
website
contains a list of fusion centers that provides email addresses and
phone numbers, but no street addresses or websites) and without any
meaningful federal oversight.
The committee’s defense of fusion centers misses the mark and ignores
several key findings of the subcommittee’s report, including that DHS
personnel authored intelligence products that violated the civil rights
and civil liberties of American citizens, withheld information about
the fusion center program from Congress, conducted no meaningful
oversight over fusion center activities, failed to account for an
unknown amount of taxpayer funds it spent on the fusion center program,
and could point to no single instance of a fusion center preventing a
terrorist attack.
There is nothing wrong with law enforcement agencies using lawful
means to collect relevant information in the course of conducting
legitimate law enforcement activities. The difference with fusion
centers is that they don’t function primarily as law enforcement
agencies; rather, their purpose is to gather and analyze intelligence.
It is this intelligence function that, without proper oversight, can
cause problems.
For example, a fusion center could issue an intelligence report about
a groundless threat posed by a particular group, ideology, or religion
without having any legitimate reason for doing so or proof to back up
the assertion. Such a report would infringe on the First Amendment
rights to free speech, association, and religion of innocent Americans
by unfairly profiling certain groups and subjecting members of those
groups to unfounded suspicion. According to the subcommittee’s report,
fusion centers submitted several such reports to DHS for review (many of
which were cancelled) and there is currently no way to know how many
such reports fusion centers may have distributed locally or regionally.
Or, a fusion center could share erroneous information about an
individual to a local police department that resulted in that person
being illegally searched, which could be a violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Without any meaningful oversight, there is no way to know
whether this is occurring.
In fact, when a former DHS official was asked in connection with the
subcommittee’s investigation to explain the department’s support to
fusion centers, he stated that DHS was trying to use fusion centers to
reach out to firefighters as potential intelligence sources because, he
said, “one of the few people who can enter your home without a warrant
is a firefighter.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you have a comment regarding the post above, please feel free to leave it here.