Skip to main content

tv   Government Surveillance Privacy Conference - Part 3  CSPAN  December 7, 2019 12:21am-2:03am EST

12:21 am
second great panel. [applause] >> thank you i learned a lot. [inaudible conversations] more now from the conference on government surveillance and privacy. with a look at countering violent extremism and facial recognition technology and first amendment issues. >> welcome back for the 2019 cato surveillance conference, i am still julian sanchez and i'm pleased to welcome you for the afternoon session there is more
12:22 am
fascinating stuff happening in the world of surveillance that can be covered in fully panels and we are always glad to have a lineup and smart focus to address that range of topics in our shorter flash talks and to begin the senior counsel and director of freedom technology and freedom, this is a time where we hear a lot about the goal of putting the first but surveillance based in this often creates friction with our allies when our surveillance goals conflict and i'm happy to welcome that from an international perspective.
12:23 am
[applause] >> thank you and hello. i am with the center for democracy and technology, ww the cdt.org. i want to talk about the applications of america first surveillance policy. when i say america first i mean americans first, the surveillance policy on the intelligence side of the equation discriminates in favor of americans and against foreigners in a dramatic way when it comes to surveillance that occurs outside the united states. inside the united states it is relatively even between americans and foreigners. in both cases when the government wants to surveilled a person in the united states and collect communications content for intelligence purposes it has
12:24 am
to show that the purpose is an agent of a foreign power or an entity like a foreign terrorist organization or foreign government. that requirement is a very high level of proof of probable cause that the person is an agent of a foreign power and the has to be done in front of a judge in the supersecret pfizer court. the outside the united states, international intelligence surveillance directed at foreigners does not have those protections. if conducted under executive order there is no probable cause requirement, no requirement that the person being agent of the government or of a foreign terrorist organization and no judge making determination at all. any activity and intentions of a foreigner a fair game and both
12:25 am
collection meaning not targeted collection is acknowledged. internationally for foreigners who are using u.s. cloud providers, the news is not better that surveillance is conducted under section 702 and you heard about that on the last panel in no probable cause, no determination that the target is a foreign power and no judge is approving individual targets and they've approved problematic surveillance based on the certification but no determination with respect to individual targets. any information relevant to u.s. foreign policy for national security is fair game. so america first surveillance policy can impact the right to foreigners because of standard or low in the u.s. government
12:26 am
ability to access communication is very high especially relative to other countries, it is high in part because a large providers are located in the united states. but america first diminishes the rights of americans and i say that because we americans can mitigate more than ever with foreigners were abroad, even the domestic communication can be routed abroad where they might be subject to permissive surveillance regimes. by targeting foreigners u.s. government collects communication of people united states intentionally incidentally, that means we intend to collect the communication of americans who are communicating with foreign target, it is intended. by targeting foreigners of low
12:27 am
standards the u.s. government amasses a database of the communication that includes communication of americans and then it turned around and queries the data for american communication without probable cause that it's in foreign power with the result of america first surveillance policy is a diminishing in the rights of americans. by failing to extent basic protection to the foreigners, we allow the database of communication to grow and grow quite huge and includes a communication of american because we communicate with foreigners abroad and communications are collected in the database even though domestic to domestic. america first offers little
12:28 am
protection to foreigners and also diminishes the protection that would be available to americans. i talked about american first and the intelligence contest because that's worth most pronounced. in the context of criminal surveillance where the government is investigating a crime, they had not been, until last year a distinction between americans and foreigners. everybody got the same rights. the combat adopted in 2018 for the first time extended a version of america first to criminal surveillance. under the agreement that the united states entered into with the uk. the uk can compel disclosures of stored content and in real time under uk law which is more
12:29 am
permissive than the u.s. law of all surveillance targets except for americans and except for people present in the united states. that is the first time that criminal surveillance laws have distinguished between americans and everyone else. america first in the criminal side of the equation and had a good adverse effect on americans that it does on the intelligence side. the uk can show that to the united states government, communication that involve americans that were collected when others were targeted. without the intervention of a judge. the next big test for whether we will continue to extend america
12:30 am
first which as i've said is not even protecting americans, the next big test will be a treaty that is being negotiated between the united states, the council of europe and other governments. that treaty is a protocol to existing treaty called the cybercrime convention. this protocol is designed to permit cross-border demands for communication traffic data, think of an e-mail log for subscriber information. . . .
12:31 am
>> the protocol says how we can do that for a domestic order for its own process which i presume based on stats provided by the foreign government for go with a foreign order to disclose wherewith your browsing history that issued without judicial review from a budapest cybercrime convention signatory like hungary turkey russia albania or ukraine. did i say ukraine?
12:32 am
[laughter] yes. it is a signatory for the budapest convention presumably to sign the protocol of cybercrime a mile down the road from this conference there is a big discussion among members of congress whether to remove from office the president of the united states because he attempted to list ukraine in an effort to investigate his political rival joe biden through his son hunter biden who had a position on the board of directors of a company in ukraine. how would ukraine investigate hunter biden? what would it do? over half of criminal investigation involve electronic evidence one could presume that what ukraine
12:33 am
would do is seek e-mail logs from hunter biden presumably using a us provider his e-mail logs are stored by that provider and could become available to the foreign government under the budapest convention. even today that providers can volunteer this information unless the law has a flaw it does permit foreign governments even your e-mail logs without there being any restriction except from the foreign government itself and what that apply is. the issue with the budapest convention it gives the foreign government a way to compel the information under foreign government laws. if ukraine once hunter biden's e-mail log both the united
12:34 am
states and ukraine signed the convention unless the us makes certain reservations, the ukrainian order could be honored by the us and compel the disclosure of the biden e-mail logs. i think congress will not allow this result based on the track record so far congress instead will want to protect americans to throw the foreigners under the best yet again. this is the same approach throwing the foreigners under the bus that has also thrown americans under the bus with them because it changes the communications without having to go through the normal legal process as if it obtained them directly.
12:35 am
the government could choose to give effect to the foreign order by reserving the right to issue due process section 27 oh three of title 18 and it would have to go in front of a judge to show reasonable suspicion to get the information sought by the foreign order. but the budapest convention doesn't prohibit discrimination currently but for the government to apply that process and a different process for the foreigner data such as the process of simply honoring the foreign demand. this is a problem that will be facing congress last year - - next year or the year after when it is asked to ratify the budapest convention protocol. we need advocates and people
12:36 am
who work at companies and those who are interested in surveillance to be proactive and we need to ensure the budapest convention protocol has equal treatment of data of foreigners and nationals with a strong due process protection and it currently doesn't do that. i want to leave you with a thought to be aware of the siren call of america first it doesn't protect americans or put us first and diminishes the rights of everyone. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much up next if you debated surveillance
12:37 am
you probably heard someone say something along the lines why should i be worried about this i'm not worried the government is not investigating me but if you have heard that the person speaking was probably was white because surveillance doesn't fall equally on all groups and it's because they fall unequally on certain persons so we will do a little bit about the way programs operating under violent extremism surveillance communities much more are under scrutiny than middle-of-the-road political
12:38 am
views. [applause] >> hello i am a legal scholar from damascus and national civil rights organization ensuring the freedom of americans of all faith today i will talk about one surveillance program imagine if no matter where you go or what you say or how you feel is tracked and the government can monitor you at school or at universities and hospitals
12:39 am
mental health visits, what if the government aggregated all of this data to make a determination? will come to violent extremism a government program that claims they can identify the violence before it occurs by monitoring their behavior and using public resources and private spaces so what if we frequent a mosque to discuss policy? you would expect sadness but that would not be a precursor for violence that is how it will define the act so where does one go to find a program like this? not far. welcome to illinois. illinois is just one grant recipient for a program designed to lead federal local
12:40 am
government to private entities in order to monitor individuals. the dip grant from department of homeland security calls in a full government approach this document is the program plan in illinois as you can see according to their own materials the state agency wanting to link federal agencies the fbi and us attorney's office to state agencies the governor and the air illinois a terrorism task force educators social service providers faith and community groups. this isn't just happening in illinois. programs operate across the country in each of these locations adjust the past four years there have been 57 to
12:41 am
the department of homeland security alone operating at every level of government. but to argue that these programs are effective they are not our own government says so those that have evaluated the programs the evaluation has looked at similar programs and what has happened in looking at a uk program called the prevent those that were mandated to report the radicalization and the result children under 18 were reported for normal behavior there are ethical concerns regarding surveillance and talk of potential repression this
12:42 am
august duke university flagged the program's failure under the obama administration because of a lack of structure and opposition from the muslim american community. over criminalized with a huge surveillance concern but how do we get here? in 2009 the fbi called this a public relations with an outreach team a pilot program meant to connect somali communities in minnesota to determine how much access the half - - the fbi has to the somali community and to identify targeted compacts within the community this underground program morphed into a community partnership of the program we know today to foster these relationships
12:43 am
and minority groups. following this in 2009 the fbi designated additional communities of interest including denver and washington dc this is all part of the current program we are discussing today the racial and religious targeting are discriminatory into this day they continue to focus on somali communities across the us. monitoring the program since their origin to have enough surveillance for the communities most of the information about these programs are not public and since 2018 the freedom of information act was sent to 16 different agencies what we found was an ever-expanding
12:44 am
program. take for instance with record request from the muslim justice league found one program run by the boston police department claims in their language somalis were inherently violent and left alone will commit violence the somali youth coordinator withdrew from the program over concerns it even drafted surveys to see if attitudes after the program toward the muslim ratified was positive or negative. could you imagine they target to their faith but yet for such a broad program let's
12:45 am
talk about how much funding they have received. surveillance is expensive both in 2014 and 2015 the department of homeland security provided $10 million grant funding these types of programs receive funding from other agencies including department of defense and department of justice. so what kind of oversight follows? it is minimal. the documents we found shows that at best agencies have to submit a paragraph long report there is no evaluation or reporting and a complete lack of guidance on civil liberties or privacy protections so we have to ask where are the programs? houses of worship in montgomery county maryland
12:46 am
among other places mosques these programs operate that in 2017 the denver police department has a grant application that stated they would focus on school-age children particularly refugee students because of their risk of radicalization. the investigation revealed it was after school program and the denver police have disavowed the language but that it does do harm to communities law enforcement also gets funding but the illinois program the state agency works with multiple agents and the chicago police department gang intelligence unit and the illinois police and has plans to collaborate with i.c.e. here are some draft agreements for something
12:47 am
they had a shared responsibility committee where the fbi would flag and refer individuals for special monitoring by their own community again no protections for civil liberties or privacy were included in this agreement at operates with mental health providers university of illinois offered continuing medical education credits for mental health providers how to implement the program like warning signs and behaviors this is particularly egregious as this is vulnerable for many individuals the program operates online there is a path to tracker on - - track online content tries to incorporate information like cross-border travel and injecting this into every setting this document that you
12:48 am
can see from the early iteration. the plan w always to link private spaces and behaviors to government agencies the program can teen on - - continues and just this year we have seen three different candidates propose a program in additional funding for it william bar release day department of justice memo over mass shooters calling early engagement and the plan to address the plan and then to repurpose a version of it to enact "early intervention to address white nationalism regardless who it is deployed against it is another effort to justify pre- crime
12:49 am
intervention. in an era where information sharing is easier than what does it mean to bring together to focus on small groups of people? this is a long run of counterterrorism campaigns across the us the program continues to target muslim and minority communities. the programs over civil liberty and privacy protections at all levels as it expands the authority and reach of law enforcement agencies become more entrenched and the program needs to be dismantled. we add muslim advocates remain opposed to them we have the right to know what government
12:50 am
programs operate within their spaces we have a lot more to say and more coming up. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. coming up next policy legislator who will be talking about a new report on the enduring history of the fbi abusive power and its implications for the first amendment of the battle and the worrying trend today and other various papers related to the talk on people outside by the registration desk so be
12:51 am
sure to take a look at the deeper dialogue of what you are hearing today. >> thank you so much to the cato institute for having me and everyone in the audience for watching and also watching on c-span2 and the lifestream if you're not in the audience you heard the announcement about the report and want to copy you can find the pdf and order a print version of it. the name of the report is called the enduring problem as the name would indicate as well as the enduring problem this is continuous, it's not new and it's been happening for a long time so what does it mean we have a long history of fbi political surveillance? we know longer treat these as
12:52 am
exceptional they are either very normalized or invisible if you talk to activists they will say the fbi is spying on us. they are infiltrating us. on the other hand it's not exceptional and not newsworthy people who should know better will not realize what is going on i accompany the gentleman from the antiwar group to put out with congressional offices at an act before congress as well as a surveillance with occupy wall street and black lives matter the representative was very concerned about the fourth amendment and the nsa and staffers were aware of the issues and we did the whole presentation and as the
12:53 am
staffer just said to us i had no idea the fbi did that. so it is perverse on the one hand it means that we accept it as normal for people don't act like it's going on. one of the parts of the report is to push back on this narrative that we see about the fbi but one in particular is when we treat these as an isolated incident. even if the mainstream media will cover the fbi abuse or new documents show they occupied wall street but they never say today we learned the fbi was knocking on the doors last month we found out they were knocking on the doors of
12:54 am
solidarity activists and last year we discover they were spying on occupied wall street indicating the problem was widespread and severe and systemic and part of a 110 year investigation. so to put together the incidents and the reason we picked 2010 not just because of a decade but in 2010 they believe a report the year of the fbi and as you can tell but that is a last time there has been an official review
12:55 am
and then just four days after they release that report they were passing that solitary activist across the midwest. so what has happened? what do we know? the first protester ever to stat foot the fbi was monitoring wall street we know that they were monitoring as early as ferguson and have come up with the intelligence assessment about the threat of identity extremism and this is insidious. and with police racism and social injustice as retaliatory violence to be aware of this threat then to
12:56 am
mitigate the threat. what that argument says is that it didn't protect political expression but as a precursor but people may be upset at the social injustices that they experience and endured to cry. other things we know about from standing rock is anti- pipeline protesters or palestinians solidarity activists after going after a foia request and in relationship hopefully you will hear more about later this month they were at occupy
12:57 am
abolish i.c.e. even the opponents of cuban normalization i asked them questions we know pretty much know every political event the fbi has been there watching and monitoring. and in some cases engaging in disruptive tactics we will talk about later. the report is about 2010 hope you will permit me to go back a few years to 19 oh eight when the fbi was founded while congress was on recess and to this day they have no congressional charter. which is something that goes back to the civil libertarians like myself. in 1919 j edgar hoover was getting his start at the fbi
12:58 am
which was originally called the radical division and was named the general intelligence division it was a hundred years ago but this is an important thing. first of all this is not abnormal. different police departments around the country like that radical position which brings me to my second part of the equation is that the fbi is not the only law enforcement agency but also gathering evidence to be used to prosecute a crime. we can dispute if they do but that is the theory but also that intelligence is far more permissive to have this trend
12:59 am
of people to have that intelligence division to track unrest in socialist and those that are not found desirable and hoover comes out of that tradition and then becomes the director of the fbi. the general intelligence division he is responsible for the bomber raids if you are ever fbi director they will ask you has the fbi ever violated civil liberties if you say yes the palmer raids that is how bad they are to this day that every candidate for fbi directorship says they are bad. and then in 1924 the attorney general is disturbed the fbi
1:00 am
is engaged in political spying so he puts limitations on them makes them head on --dash meet with the president that they are secretly spying and then they say show is a statute it is against the law that they would limit the fbi to only investigate violations of federal criminal code they found a way to get around that but the important thing is in 19 forties fdr puts forth an executive order to give them national security which hoover interprets as giving him a broad mandate. so they use this in 1939 that is literally a list of people to detain in a national emergency attorney general
1:01 am
discovers this and says what? a secret list of people with names? you have to get rid of this so hoover changed the name. we are not spying. we don't have this list and later but in this instance he seeks you changes the name and we should treat the threat of detention not abstract but we found out that in 196012 days after the korean war hoover asked them to put 12000 people in the camps he thought were threats to national security. they said no they would not do this but the list continued. at the height of the security list 20174 people.
1:02 am
that's not the only listed there is a reserve index of people who are dangerous but not national security and then the fbi would connect the numbers to people off of the security index. but the point is there is a lot of indexes but what hoover does is he takes these and use them as a tool for mass political surveillance that between all the indices 430,000 files are allegedly aimed at individuals. tell me that's not surveillance we usually talk about counterintelligence program that was in the battle days of the fbi surveillance
1:03 am
people have been saying that since the investigation of ronald reagan foreign-policy in the eighties so i think it's important not to replace that with surveillance because of the committee says it is a misnomer this is a domestic covert action to protect the status quo. and then somebody mentioned the murder of fred who was killed by the police 50 years ago earlier this week that was a police raid set up at a point of operation. so in 1956 hoover convince the supreme court he cannot prosecute for criminal law so he uses to neutralize and disrupt and it is perfectly
1:04 am
legal and speech that he deems threatening. it starts with the communist into civil rights and then it goes up against the kkk i will not talk about that as i could go on all day as an informant for the fbi and does not want his face on tv. and also would clash with his suit. yes there are some bad stuff in that era but with the reformed fbi and with those scandals and what they were
1:05 am
doing in central america and then have a hearing about it with the entire investigation and the geo it was a huge incident and then in the eighties or the early nineties and the run-up to the gulf war ended up visiting the potential us war in the gulf with this recurring theme so it was not engaged in political surveillance is not true. but 9/11 comes in then they get new powers. so here is the main recommendation to have a
1:06 am
statutory charter but that doesn't happen because they are self-regulating and because of that later attorney generals could make that but the current guidelines put in place in 2008 by george bush attorney general before obama came into office allowed for the first time the fbi to investigate people without factual predicate of criminal activity or national security threats. those two categories are assessment and predicated means having a factual question. and then of course is the patriot act we know they are up to all of these different things they spy on and greenpeace so in 2000 says
1:07 am
asking the oig to look into this and they issued a report that is often cited being very critical of the fbi that in a lot of ways illustrates how loose their guidelines. for example they were discussing whether or not if it's okay for the fbi to engage in counterterrorism investigation. and the oig was somebody through red paint at a military base at a window and then said this is those who suffer under saddam hussain and then said that the red tape as a force of violence that is terrorism so that's is an important thing to remember
1:08 am
when they tell us they do not have enough tools to investigate or any other type of terrorist activities. when it comes to quakers or antiwar activist they always find a way or reason. given the problem is ongoing we shouldn't be surprised it still going on we need really important reforms to put the fbi in check. i will concede even if they're all put in place it is a long-term struggle but the biggest is to reign in the fbi investigative powers and have reason to suspect which doesn't sound that radical but it actually is. thank you very much for
1:09 am
listening to my a presentation and watching on c-span2 and everybody takes the report online. [applause] >> thanks chip. surveillance actually comes from to watch from above in french you cannot get more watch e-from above than with satellites the orbital entities that are increasingly tracking us and in
1:10 am
collaboration with the much closer tracking devices in our pockets. the combination of that to monitor from above is a paper authored by three authors and nancy mckenna with the computational and data sciences is recommended to everyone and it is an analysis of the intersection of these two technologies. so this requires more exploration. [applause] >> good afternoon thank you to the cato institute there is a
1:11 am
lot of research in this paper. my co-authors could not be here today. one who is also a professor of radiology at penn state. this is all research so i am excited to talk to about these things so i will start with a story that might jog your memory that happened last year that starts of what comes from these things and what happens if they are combined with the satellite? so one of the places we saw that was the fitness app it became global by aggregating the data of satellites and
1:12 am
cell phones to understand how much data. it is interesting. as much data that generates in six months and it only cost them a couple hundred dollars and processing cost so it's very easy to access data. shortly after they publish their global heat map to show all of the users everywhere all around the world, we get a tweet from a 20 euro australian student that says they released the global heat map tool but not for those that require secrecy. new york times picks it up and overnight the story blows up now we have a national security crisis. but what is interesting the new york times reported the
1:13 am
pentagon had given the soldiers fit bit they wanted to encourage them to exercise so teethree was a platform for these athletes was basis to be identified overnight to create an immediate risk from strava to our armed forces. so i am looking at this in my background as electronic surveillance law. i have co-authored a large treatise on eavesdropping that looking at how this happened in the satellite data if it went into the global map where did it come from and how is there a shutter control with
1:14 am
the satellite images putting this together i was struggling and i realized i know so little. so reaching out and working with my colleagues we really tried to put this together. so we came up with a term so i will spend a little bit of time going through that and how we got there and how does this wor work. when i was looking into this i realized there was a large gap in the privacy law literature. attorneys try to stay in their lane privacy lean scholars and we heard from the general counsel talk about location tracking. but in looking at this, how do we regulate satellite data by private companies cracks me will talk about our electronic
1:15 am
scheme in the us and realizing the phones and fit bits and social media has all the satellite data. so we have a lot of questions. how does that work? who can own them? how do they work with smart debases? is this government? private entities? who can access? and to practice surveillance law for decades but i haven't come across what courts do. starting with a basic overview of how satellites work it's to the human eye. if we can touch it it is physically there.
1:16 am
but it is a process to require information about our surroundings about being in contact. that's what satellites do. and then to have different sensors with different purposes with the geostationary satellites and they all serve different purposes from stationary satellites it is a consistent image over time with the same place on earth. we can look for many things. back satellite is rapidly increasing and have they work together so trying to figure that out figuring out how gps works.
1:17 am
every device has a gps chip with the global positioning satellite we were the first to market that because we made the gps public satellite system before any country did. when the us did that it guaranteed a place in the market for the gps chip if you want a device to use your location service you need the chip that works with us satellites. fit bit, smart devices have these chips in them. they are tiny. the gps system any time chip is connecting to identify the satellites to use multiple data they know precisely where im. the sensors in the smart devices are micro- electric
1:18 am
systems they are silicon based and tiny. the tiny tiny sensors assist the gps which is incredibly precise. we heard earlier today about location tracking and how cellular tracking works the gps uses the power of the cell phone. but these smart devices and is remarkable those sensors that are embedded. so on this diagram you can see. these devices can be put into anything. one thing that really should be up there automobile and home and electricity, smart phone sensor sensors, also
1:19 am
toy sensors as more and more toys are built with the sensors in them with gps tracking chips. all of this works off of satellites. even shopping carts have these sensors built into them so a patent application filed by walmart biometric data sensors biofeedback shopping cart handle i don't want walmart to know my heart rate but how is it regulated? what is happening? cart speed, location, heart rat rate, and working with the backbone of satellites and gps in the sensors. so in terms of why this
1:20 am
happens it was exactly that. it is data including movement so when we think about that kind of movement it is precise gps data and remote sensing imagery to merge together and that's what we get. so what is interesting about strava is it reveals, it was doing nothing wrong. it broke no laws it was giving the users what they want. that this product and what we realize is from a regulatory perspective and a privacy perspective. without the role of satellites
1:21 am
interacting and geospatial data. the other piece of strava was the social media data. we are constantly interacting with social media people have been tweeting all day and myself included and what we hear at this conference when we tweet up as the geolocation tag in the metadata as public information that anybody can look at but all this comes together so my question with my background with cyberand privacy law is how do we regulate satellite? satellites are run by private companies. how was that regulated? so the idea that comes from
1:22 am
international treaties is that is there for anybody. we don't want claims of sovereignty. so when we look at this, where does it come from? it is really related to client security and the national security implications but it is byzantine to figure out what satellite companies can do with data. that's a tough thing to figure out and the data that's being collected. but one of the things i found interesting who regulates remote commercial sensing
1:23 am
satellites? who could it be? it's the weather people. noaa regulate satellite sad is fascinating when we presented this we had a great comment to her former department of commerce attorney did not know that noaa regulated commercial remote-sensing. it's not well known who knew? we can understand why noaa is clearly using satellites which is integral to climate analysis and weather prediction but now with national security implications. what about other laws
1:24 am
regulating commercial law there is no federal legislation that directly regulates. because we don't have any kind of location tracking privacy regulation. so i will talk about the legislation we do have to place but there is none tracking through the satellite information. that the governor vetoed that legislation. so what do we have? the robust electronic communications privacy act that clearly protected wire communications of americans. we heard this morning taking
1:25 am
us through the laws and how the laws work and how information can be accessed. but satellites and satellite data all that is in outer space what is fascinating the regulatory problem so i will talk more about how that's handled and why that can be problematic. so we know there are bills right now about locating geolocation data to protect it. it's a big point but the problem is just that is not enough. different sensors equal different information and part of the confusion how this is addressed is actually a court
1:26 am
decision and this is a disconnect if you use a gps tracking device is unlawful warrantless location data is unlawful. thermal energy gone - - imaging is unlawful. aerial surveillance airplanes taking photographs of private property. aerial surveillance is fine camera surveillance is fine publicly. but the disconnect satellites consents heat and operate in a way that thermal imaging device can get. we can regulate temperature. there is a disconnect and
1:27 am
robust privacy law but does not apply at all to satellites. so how are satellites regulated? why is this creating concerns? noaa does have a commercial remote office. there is a robust marriage between commercial remote-sensing and the us government. part of that licensing is part of the problem. the licensing process is not public so when we think of this warrantless use of satellite data and what we hear about it but because it's
1:28 am
all on this go above domestic laws or regulations of were surveillance what is occurring is not happening in public. we know they are regulated internationally and nationally why do we want to promote commercial? it is incredibly value information and if we harness the technology and development efforts it is a benefit for the us government. it should be apparent and you can sense that here. so those that have merged into information access no federal
1:29 am
regulation and that jurisprudence is separated. so what do we do with that? how do we address that? it is a persistent and growing national security concern. strava was not alone if we fast-forward to the military personnel looking at what happened because it reveals military control and supply and it extends beyond military personnel and these concerns that i talk about. so part of how we miss that national security threat we were focusing on malicious state actors so what was their development and the collision
1:30 am
that happens and to talk about this to be very disjointed and cumbersome regulatory regime when it comes to satellites. so we have some recommendations but the space optics register registers all satellites. and all that is but for safety and the entity of the government that was operating the satellite and the location watched that is the reason the country from which but it is
1:31 am
remarkable that includes the data collected, how it stored in all of those things. we don't have any public information provided about that. is still under the guise of the national security framework. we don't reveal that information so they have a remote sensing satellite in providing the information to the us military aggregating divider one --dash multiple kinds of satellites and facial analysis.
1:32 am
check out the website it's fascinating that we can extract insights to the geospatial data with analysis and your competitors store and who was there and when and why. and real-time location tracking. but yet that information and part of that licensing that us government has control over and of those particular groups satellites are fundamental part of this. each year we see in the bill congress the effort to protect privacy to give us a better
1:33 am
balance of privacy law but we don't see them as being addressed as part of this. but then we have an open stream between commercial and remote sensing data and the us government. outside of our regular domestic surveillance law. so how do we address this? to make public that process that makes what data is being collected and how it's being used and to whom it is disseminated how long is the data being retained? but missing from that piece is
1:34 am
the geospatial data that collects and uses our one is the international component we are in a speech race with commercial actors and governments. talking about the system it's important to understand so going to different countries china is leading the way launching satellites. so with future international discussions, we have these questions about the processing of other countries. but right now we see the constant data we are having because the eu and acted as
1:35 am
general protection regulation how that's affecting data aggregated and collected. one other piece we see in the commercial remote-sensing is missing from these regulations which is underway right now is any discussion of the words privacy or civil liberty we want to unfettered what they can do for us. that has to be second of that regulatory process to make the satellite smart.
1:36 am
>> we are where the laws are being enacted or passed ending up with very disjointed legislation and the efforts to regulate satellite data for commercial reasons for complexities how do we do that? that is to figure out how we take the existing federal privacy act and related legislation to make sure government can get data lawfully within a framework that is consistent within the constitution with the fourth amendment obviously concerns have been addressed consistent with privacy expressed that
1:37 am
how do we make that consistent because if strava revealed multiple location bases putting us personnel in an immediate danger, this is a problem affecting everyone. not just the thing to be concerned advocates were concerned and the area is common ground there is a lot more in the paper and i'm trying to give you a quex overview of there is any questions i will be around. sorry my co-authors cannot be here as well. thank you very much. [applause]
1:38 am
[inaudible conversations] >> with the macro scale of eyes in the sky to more local monitoring i was thinking of them at the national level in those and it turns out those consumer devices and local
1:39 am
authorities a few years down the road. discussing facial recognition technology worth paying attention to at the local level. talking about the new guide for citizens investigating facial recognition. >> so thank you for having us here today. we had been investigating the use of facial recognition technology request. although police apartments one - - departments to have access to the technology we are finding it in places we did not expect to be seen. 's we want to address what are
1:40 am
those places and where she would be looking? in your own backyard where are the couch cushions you would not overturn? that is what we talk about toda today. thank you for having us here. i work at open the government a nonpartisan coalition working to's to promote a more accountable government before i jumped up i spent five and a half years pretty much for your request so this is an issue i have worked on closely a number of years.
1:41 am
next we have senior information technology officer at washington county that is in oregon. he decided to allow and he integrated in a match that up with a facial recognition technology. so there is no concerns about civil liberties are requirements to let anyone know this is happening. were to reach out to amazon and since then has become an evangelist for amazon and that this is the future with where
1:42 am
we are with racial on - - facial recognition technology. so that's where we wanted to start and why because it's not just here but to that end we create a couple of guides over the summer to write a beginner introduction guide if you never sent a foia request or through the public records laws we have a great resources that is seven pages that you not only go through your rights as a requester but the specific language you might be using when you send a request on facial recognition. what vendors you might be interested in or a particular algorithm but the name of the fender is different than the technology.
1:43 am
and we have eyes outside as wel well. after introducing the guide we sent hundreds of request to police departments across the country where again you can take the same draft language and if you are interested in particular policies or vendors just investigate this in your own backyard as well.
1:44 am
the way the police departments access is indirectly i would naïvely send out a request and say let me see your invoices and policies and then they will say something clever we don't own the system and intended to purchase it if you took them at their word that they are not using or accessing the technology. but it means it's a carefully phrased expression that they have not purchased it it doesn't say accessing data or sharing data or talk about other third parties. so talk about how that might look and then to fill in the blanks about what you might expect.
1:45 am
>> in his presentation at amazon to integrate their data with other data. what we found out not only was washington county rolling out facial recognition data using amazon but also building a system by which other counties can look at their data and vice versa. there is an agency right next to washington county and after they saw this presentation they said what you teach us how to do this we will share data of mugshots i don't know if you can see this but they have no policies in place for controlling access.
1:46 am
so that is one way people share data you will create waves and then to create any policies but then also looking at the technology and infusion centers. those are only supposed to be sharing data and by statute not to investigate crimes. but that is not what we are finding. if they don't understand and/or respect then does not but they do have agreements with the fusion centers and backing centers i did not
1:47 am
expect the fusion center would have that technology but it was finding this. two weeks ago there was a report where surveillance cameras like ring access the footage then in arizona and the police department does not have facial recognition but they were guessing they could send the data to the fusion center and they could run scans and then that back based off of the data. but that is what we are fighting at.
1:48 am
second the president of vendor the data works in secret trying to get and san francisco police sacramento county is on here and then you have those that are secret organizing the task force for call members from two years ago and 2017 the article just came out last year on - - this year. also august september of this year san francisco moved to ban facial recognition by law enforcement in total. it creates a lot of issues of secrecy with a credit vendor in secret building off the regional task force in the
1:49 am
public space and those who don't want to use this technology to create problems around secrecy and public right to notice. much like we saw with license plate readers, we see contractual agreements but so when license plate reader technology they are down but they have 4 billion images and their license plate database because they build that but then go to motorola and then
1:50 am
that the language to emerge in the contracts. i think this contract is out of irvine california. so i think a lot of that trajectory people are talking about to regulate is very similar to the problems we were seeing. another way we found this was three statewide initiatives for the attorney general so we found this and that which runs the actual stand and the similar so every single law
1:51 am
enforcement agency has access to this technology but none of them actually own it. ohio is very similar as well. >> apparently that's the case this was a training manual from lubbock texas they sent officers out on a training session and the 30 multiple-choice questions and i believe this is the only time so what we see across the country there seems to be very little training but if there is with the vendors that is a multiple-choice question. so that's the best way to test
1:52 am
that technology. so any kind of request or policies does not seem to exist. so how do you find policies we universally got those denied. we have five or six but for the most part any public records request or for yeah you send naval treated as a yes or no. that is very troubling noaa is looking into any type of bias with this technology at all.
1:53 am
that with that accuracy assessment quirks, zero go and for different reasons but if you do plan on doing this in your backyard please look after that because so far it is a nonstarter i guess nobody has records or nobody cares. briefly looking to the future use, we see it deployed by these rebels - - robocop's patrolling the malls in california with facial recognition software for some reason and they scan the parking lots of malls and things like that but i have no idea why but obviously is not limited to law enforcement use there is other interest. we see real-time facial
1:54 am
recognition being pitched by motorola with the idea to prevent school shootings you will create a blacklist of people who should not be allowed into the school and created geo- fence around the school and learned of everybody coming in and out of the school that's the way they are selling it they don't call it real-time facial recognition but alert detection and geo- sensing but some bizarre name. you read about this across the country as well and for a long time police departments only use things like dmv photos and booking photos for vet facial recognition database knowing the public would not like other things like data scraped off the internet or facebook
1:55 am
photos to be used for their databases. we have stories coming out that is no longer the case. so what we have been worrying about only using it to catch criminals seems no longer to be the case. we will be hearing about that a lot more in the next coming months and weeks. finally i want to mention and again we have recommendations for what we think needs to happen with this technology. generally open to the government support as a moratorium with the acquisition. technology is complex but we have to support things like additional funding so they can investigate these problems. we support foia to private
1:56 am
contractors so we can find out about these technologies. and with that we have time for a few questions. >> [applause] >> me have a 20 minute break please take this opportunity to chat with our speakers this is a good opportunity.
1:57 am
and i will ask them about what we have seen. we will start at 3:00 p.m. sharp on the privacy and civil liberties oversight board the body that board members will be here to talk about how they approach it. please don't miss that and come back. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations]
1:58 am
>> we are all elevated in our opinions because the new model forces us toward more provocative stuff. before here is the news. now it is replaced entertainment. >> i would go into combat in afghanistan all tricked out with my bulletproof everything and helmet guys on my right and left with a big guns next nbc news is standing there in
1:59 am
a bulletproof vest i assure you will not stop a bullet at with a tin hat helmet he risks his life to tell us what is happening. is he serving us? i think so. >> they are always asking me constantly what is the path to redemption cracks what do we do? i was trying to come up with an answer to people asking me that i realize the answer i don't know not my responsibility. you keep trying stuff until people forgive you. figured out.
2:00 am
2:01 am
2:02 am

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on