Group items tagged

WASHINGTON — U.S. agencies collected and shared the personal information of thousands of Americans in an attempt to root out untrustworthy federal workers that ended up scrutinizing people who had no direct ties to the U.S. government and simply had purchased certain books.Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

The unprecedented creation of such a list and decision to disseminate it widely demonstrate the ease with which the federal government can collect and share Americans’ personal information, even when there’s no clear reason for doing so. The case comes to light amid revelations that the NSA, in an effort to track foreign terrorists, has for years been stockpiling the data of the daily telephone and Internet communications of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. Though nowhere near as massive as the NSA programs, the polygraph inquiry is another example of the federal government’s vast appetite for Americans’ personal information and the sweeping legal authority it wields in the name of national security. “This is increasingly happening – data is being collected by the federal government for one use and then being entirely repurposed for other uses and shared,” said Fred Cate, an Indiana University-Bloomington law professor who specializes in information privacy and national security. “Yet there is no constitutional protection for sharing data within the government.”

While the collection of the information likely passes constitutional muster, the federal agencies involved may have violated their own privacy policies by sharing the personal information of people who aren’t government employees, several legal experts agreed.

The government is listening to your internets. Generate a sentence with some of the keywords they're looking for. Tweet or share and you could earn a new follower in Washington.

Beginning August 1st of this year, JP Morgan & Chase Co. will charge their customers for depositing cash into their accounts. According to an internal document sent to account holders, in less than a month from now “the fee for all types of Cash Deposit Processing (CDP) will be $0.25 per $100 [deposited]. The CDP fee will only apply after you exceed your account’s cash deposit limit.” One reason for Chase to charge their customers a fee on cash deposits may reside in the fact that the major banks are “charging customers who deposit lots of cash.” Wherein Chase is charging customers for every $100 in cash deposited, other banks are charging on every cash deposit of $10,000; or $0.20 on every $100 deposited. Kris Dawsey, economist for Goldman Sachs, warned about banks charging customers fees for simply depositing cash into their account in 2013.

When asked about a meeting of the Federal Reserve (Fed) Board and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), wherein it was revealed that the 0.25% annual interest rate on money that the banks keep in the Fed would be reduced, Dawsey said: “One risk is that the move could prompt charges … on bank deposits.” Last November, Kristin Lemkau, spokesperson for JP Morgan & Chase Co said: “We have no intention of charging for retail customer deposits.” However this promise has not been kept. David George, analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co, explains that the financial institutions “would need to find alternative revenue sources to compensate” because of this decline in the Fed’s interest rate and fees on deposits “would be the most likely” option.

George said: “Having a bank account is a service, like the water and electric bill. And it has become less and less profitable.” Wayne Abernathy, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association confirmed: “Banks could respond to a drop in the Fed’s interest rate by charging a fee to large business customers that hold millions of dollars in savings accounts. Banks must bear the expense of managing that money.” Analysts say the Durbin Amendment within the Dodd Frank Act which limited fees imposed by merchant retailers onto banks who issue debit cards “has effectively hit consumer-banking revenues pretty hard.” When accessing debits, banks view checking accounts as high-risk and costing “a lot of money” to the banks.

Human Rights Watch and the ACLU today published a terrific report documenting the chilling effect on journalists and lawyers from the NSA's surveillance programs entitled: "With Liberty to Monitor All: How Large-Scale US Surveillance is Harming Journalism, Law and American Democracy." The report, which is chock full of evidence about the very real harms caused by the NSA's surveillance programs, is the result of interviews of 92 lawyers and journalists, plus several senior government officials.  This report adds to the growing body of evidence that the NSA's surveillance programs are causing real harm.  It also links these harms to key parts of both U.S. constitutional and international law, including the right to counsel, the right of access to information, the right of association and the free press. It is a welcome addition to the PEN report detailing the effects on authors, called Chilling Effects: How NSA Surveillance Drives US Writers to Self-Censor and the declarations of 22 of EFF's clients in our First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA case. 

The HRW and ACLU report documents the increasing treatment of journalists and lawyers as legitimate surveillance targets and surveys how they are responding. Brian Ross of ABC says: There’s something about using elaborate evasion and security techniques that’s offensive to me—that I should have to operate as like a criminal, like a spy. The report also notes that the government increasingly likens journalists to criminals. As Scott Shane of the New York Times explains: To compare the exchange of information about sensitive programs between officials and the media, which has gone on for decades, to burglary seems to miss the point. Burglary is not part of a larger set of activities protected by the Constitution, and at the heart of our democracy. Unfortunately, that mindset is sort of the problem. Especially striking in the report is the disconnect between the real stories of chilling effects from reporters and lawyers and the skeptical, but undocumented, rejections from senior government officials.  The reporters explain difficulties in building trust with their sources and the attorneys echo that with stories about the difficulties building client trust.  The senior government officials, in contrast, just say that they don't believe the journalists and appear to have thought little, if at all about the issues facing lawyers.