What lies behind the anti "conspiracy theorist" discourse - The State Against The Republic

Comment: In the wake of the Paris Attacks this article by geopolitical analyst Thierry Meyssan is well worth revisiting.

----------------------

Thierry Meyssan

Voltairenet.org

 

At the request of President François Hollande, the French Socialist Party has published a note on the international “conspiracy theorist" movement. His goal: to prepare new legislation prohibiting it to express itself. In the US, the September 11, 2001 coup established a "permanent state of emergency" (Patriot Act), launching a series of imperial wars. Gradually, the European elites have aligned with their counterparts across the Atlantic. Everywhere, people are worried about being abandoned by their States and they question their institutions. Seeking to retain power, the elites are now ready to use force to gag their opposition.

The President of the French Republic, François Hollande, has assimilated what he calls "conspiracy theories" to Nazism and called to prevent their dissemination on the Internet and social networks.

Thus he declared, on January 27, 2015 at the Shoah Memorial:

"[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst "(...)" [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks. Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce" [1].

Several ministers also decried what they called conspiracy theorists as so many "fermenters of hate and disintegrators of society."

Knowing that President Hollande calls "conspiracy theory" the idea that States, whatever their regimes - including democracies - have a spontaneous tendency to act in their own interests and not in that of their constituents, we can conclude that he presented this confused amalgam to justify a possible censure of his opponents.

This interpretation is confirmed by the publication of a note entitled "Conspiracy theories, current status" by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, a Socialist Party think tank of which Mr. Holland was the first secretary. [2]

Let’s leave aside the political relations of François Hollande, the Socialist Party, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, its political radicalism Observatory and the author of the note and let’s focus on its message and its ideological content.

Read more

Pentagon War Plans in 2001: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, & Iran

Comment: Just in case we forget the reasons for the current chaos...

-----------------

Police State USA

U.S. General Wesley Clark (ret.) revealed that he was informed, in the days following 9/11/2001, that the Department of Defense was planning wars with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,  Iran.

Clark was regarded as an esteemed commander during his service from 1966 to 2000, and obtained the rank of 4-star general. He discussed the matter in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on March 2, 2007.

Here is the transcript of Gen. Clark’s account:

CLARK: About 10 days after 9/11, I went to the Pentagon, and I saw [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz. I went downstairs to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff that used to work for me.

One of the generals called me in and said, “Sir, you gotta come in and talk to me.” I said, “Sir, you’re too busy.” And he said, “No, no! We’ve made the decision — we’re going to war with Iraq!” This is on or about the 28th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why!?” He said, “I don’t know!” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?” He said, “No, no, there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess its like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. And I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, its worse than that.” He said– he reached over on his desk and he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, “I just got this from upstairs,” meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office. And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.”

What can be made of this?

One explanation, as some suggest, is that it is not unexpected for the Pentagon to maintain ongoing contingency plans; keeping ready to pursue various far-fetched wars at all times. But even if that much is true, why would this seven-country invasion plan be put into official memos in the weeks following the 9/11/2001 attack? Those countries had nothing to do with the hijackings — yet American generals were being briefed about serious plans to attack. Why?

The proposed plan obviously did not pan out exactly as written, but it may have very well given us a look at the agenda of some very bloodthirsty policy-makers, as they tried to exploit the anguish felt following the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Disturbingly, we cannot even be sure that “the plan” is not still being pursued. The Pentagon has maintained a steady course of aggressive foreign interventionism throughout both the Bush and Obama administrations. As we have witnessed, much of what General Clark revealed has ultimately moved forward, albeit with a modified timeline.

Iraq’s government was toppled by the U.S. during the bloody full-scale invasion in 2003. U.S. commandos have been operating clandestinely in Sudan since at least 2005. The U.S. has been operating Somalia since 2007, clandestinely and through missile strikes. Libya’s government was toppled with the help of U.S. missile support in 2009. The U.S. began its bombing campaign in Syria in 2014. Iran’s fate remains yet to be determined, but was a frequent target of pro-war rhetoric in the ’12 election cycle.

If one subscribes to the idea that it is the U.S. military’s proper role (and the U.S. taxpayers’ economic burden) to clean up every undemocratic cesspool on the planet, then this brand of foreign policy might make sense or seem appealing. But even if that much is accepted, one must acknowledge that the leaders and policymakers clamoring for war are the same folks who gave us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the ACA, the TSA, mass domestic spying, giant bailouts, exponential debt growth, and so many other harmful policies.

Americans’ patriotism and support of democracy have long been exploited by leaders with a far less altruistic foreign policy agenda. The country is not being kept in a state of perpetual conflict because it is good for the USA, good for the world, or destined to promote freedom.

Could it be that the purpose of pursuing war is to be at war? War is the perfect tool to centralize and expand government, degrade civilian liberties, suppress dissenting voices, maintain high levels of state secrecy, unaccountably disperse large sums of taxpayer money, militarize law enforcement, spy on the people, among other things. As Randolph Bourne famously wrote, “War is the health of the state.”

{ Support Police State USA }

Obama’s War on Freedom

Comment: Stephen telling it exactly as it is. Whether you are on the right on the left or you have begun to wean yourself off the pantomime that is Establishment politics of today, you will see that Obama is much worse than Bush. (Yes, that's right). Bush was clearly an idiot placed in power to the bidding of the Bush dynasty and to pave the way for someone like Obama who could carry through the groundwork of Neo-Conservatism. For those who accuse this man of being a covert socialist, and others who claim he is a fascist - both are wrong. He is puppet for his handlers who comprise of both ideologies. A perfect hybrid of international collectivism/Fabianism and inverted totalitarianism/fascism in vitro. A puppet maybe - but a very dangerous one. 

Stephen Lendman

Perhaps no president in US history disappointed supporters more than Obama. He pledged "change you can believe it." He promised hope.

He did Lincoln one better. He fooled most people enough times to matter. He never cared about rule of law principles. He trashed them in office. He deplores democratic values.

He's beholden to monied interests. "Yes we can" conceals his dark side duplicity. He made America look increasingly like Guatemala. Nothing ahead suggests change.

International, constitutional and US statute laws don't matter. Bush declared them null and void. So did Obama.

He presides over a ruthless police state apparatus. No one is free and safe. Big Brother watches everyone. Mass surveillance is official US policy.

On Friday, Obama will announce so-called new guidelines. He'll ask Congress for help. Expect business as usual to continue. Expect worse than ever ahead. Expect lies claiming otherwise.

Ending the fake war on terror matters. So does halting mass surveillance entirely. Restoring rule of law freedoms matters most.

Expect Obama's war to destroy them to continue. When Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, Center for Constitutional Rights senior litigation attorney Nancy Chang asked: "What's so patriotic about trampling on the Bill of Rights?"

In March 2006, Congress renewed most Patriot Act powers. In May 2011, Congress and Obama extended key ones for another four years.

They include mass surveillance. Domestic spying increased markedly under Obama. Anything goes more than ever became policy. It remains so.

Expect the worst of what's ongoing to continue. Expect another Obama pledge to be broken.

Expect the worst of mass surveillance to remain official US policy. Expect fake national security threats given as reasons.

Expect hyped fear to continue. Expect freedom to keep eroding en route to disappearing altogether.

Spying in America is institutionalized. Big Brother is no longer fiction. State-of-the-art technology permits the worst of what's ongoing.

Decades earlier spying was crude compared to today's. Modern capability is unprecedented. Virtually everyone can be monitored everywhere at all times.

Nothing too secret or personal can escape scrutiny. NSA technology permits monitoring offline computers. It's done through radio waves.

At least 100,000 computers worldwide include software enabling it. Perhaps they all will eventually.

NSA can penetrate computers covertly. It can alter data without Internet access. It can create a digital highway for cyberattacks.

Its program is code-named "Quantum." According to cybersecurity expert James Andrew Lewis:

"What's new here is the scale and sophistication of (NSA's) ability to get into computers and networks to which no one had ever had access before."

"Some of these capabilities have been around for a while, but the combination of learning how to penetrate systems to insert software and learning how to do that using radio frequencies has given the US a window it's never had before."

Expect NSA to take full advantage. Perhaps everyone connected online will be monitored this way eventually.

Perhaps targeted individuals will be attacked this way. Expect greater than ever harm committed.

Expect Obama and Congress to do nothing to stop it. Manufactured threats permit the worst of what's ongoing. Domestic spying more than ever is institutionalized.

In August 2007, candidate Obama addressed the Woodrow Wilson Center. He lied like he always does. He does it shamelessly. It's part of his DNA.

He addressed many issues. He lied about every one. He promised real change if elected president. He exceeds the worst of George Bush.

We lost our "basic values," he said. We got "color-coded politics of fear" instead.

He argued against waging one war after another. He promised to close Guantanamo straightaway in office.

It's "time to turn a page," he said. We'll "restore our values." We'll "secure a more resilient homeland."

We'll end wars that shouldn't be waged, he said. "The solution in Afghanistan is not just military. (It's) political and economic."

"(T)he days of compromising our values are over."

Obama promised to "adhere to the Geneva Conventions." He trashed them straightaway in office. He systematically violates rule of law principles. Nothing impedes his ruthlessness.

No promise is too sacred not to break. He pledged "no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens."

"No more national security letters (NSLs) to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime."

Most people never heard of them. Many are victims without knowing it. Others are gagged from discussing them.

They involve abusive police state intrusions. Patriot Act authority gives FBI operatives access to whatever personal information they want.

No court approval is needed. Most targeted individuals committed no crimes. They planned none. It doesn't matter.

NSL use is unconstitutional. Obama continues the worst of Bush administration abuses. Another promise made. Another broken.

"No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war," he said. "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient."

"That is not who we are...We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Obama pledged to end violating civil liberties. He called doing so unacceptable. He exceeded the worst of Bush administration policies.

He lies claiming otherwise. He trashed rule of law principles. He mocks democratic values.

He declared cyberwar on ordinary Americans. He supports draconian cybersecurity legislation.

Cyber-preemption increases police state power. Homeland repression is worse than ever.

Administration policies are the most secretive in US history. They're the most lawless and out-of-control.

On January 15, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked: "Will Obama Hit the Mark on Real NSA Reform?"

He'll announce so-called changes. He'll claim he supports reform. "What can we expect," asked EFF?

"Many people are (justifiably) skeptical...Instead of actually stopping the spying, Obama could just make a pronouncement calling for more transparency or additional layers of bureaucratic oversight."

"(H)e could duck the most important thing (needed) to show leadership: rein in government surveillance."

EFF offered "common-sense fixes." They address key issues. Don't expect Obama to change anything meaningful. Expect worse than ever practices ahead. EFF reforms include:

(1) "Stop mass surveillance of digital communications and communication records." Stop using legislative or Executive Order cover to justify the unjustifiable.

(2) "Protect the privacy rights of foreigners." Calling them fair game doesn't wash.

(3) "Don't turn communications companies into the new Big Brother: no data retention mandate." End NSA's telecommunications collection program.

(4) Require judicial authorization for National Security Letters. End gag order authority. Rein in lawless FBI practices. Restore rule of law principles.

(5) "Stop undermining Internet security, weakening encryption, and infiltrating companies." Abolish these practices once and for all.

(6) "Oppose the FISA Improvements Act (FIA)." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D. CA) sponsored it. She chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

On October 31, FIA was introduced. Senate Intelligence Committee members approved it. They voted 11 to 4 in favor. Legislation awaits a full floor vote.

It's a fake fix. Enactment would enhance NSA spying. It'll codify it into law.

(7) "Reject the third party doctrine." Obama should say data held by third parties (like phone and Internet companies) have "the same constitutional protections as data stored at home."

(8) "Provide a full public accounting of our surveillance apparatus." End administration secrecy. Tell Americans and others what they deserve to know.

(9) "Reform the state secrets privilege and stop over-classifying." Sunlight more than ever is needed. Public accountability is most of all. End rule of law abuses.

(10) "Reform the FISA court: provide a public advocate and stop secret law." FISA court judges are secretive, unaccountable and rubber-stamp. Abolishing their authority entirely should be ordered.

(11) "Protect national security whistleblowers working for the public good." Candidate Obama called whistleblowing "acts of courage and patriotism."

He pledged whistleblower protection, saying:

"Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out."

"We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance."

He promised to do it. He promised protection. He's targeted more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined. It bears repeating. Another promise made. Another broken.

(12) "Criminal defendants should know if national security surveillance is being used against them." Failing to do so violates Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

They guarantee defendants "meaningful opportunity" to effectively challenge government accusations.

EFF will score Obama's Friday speech. It'll publish its assessment online. It bears repeating. Policy pronouncements don't matter. They ring hollow.

Enforcing rule of law principles alone counts. Obama betrayed the public trust. He's done so consistently.

Expect no change going forward. Expect worse ahead than ever. Expect continuing police state lawlessness. Expect full-blown tyranny if not stopped.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Reality TV Presidential Puppets Used to Distract the Masses With Guest Michael Badnarik

Good interview. 

"The Presidential campaign is designed to be a distraction. The last thing they want to do is talk about issues....For the most part the conclusion has already been predetermined.... of the candiates have been bought and paid for....It's mostly for show."

US: A Dangerous Woman - Indefinite Detention at Carswell

The Peoples' Voice

Susan Lindauer

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. A bill moving through Congress, authorizing the military to imprison American citizens indefinitely, without a trial or hearing, ranks right at the top of that list.

I know—I lived through it on the Patriot Act. When Congress decided to squelch the truth about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and the existence of a comprehensive peace option with Iraq, as the CIA's chief Asset covering Iraq, I became an overnight threat. To protect their cover-up scheme, I got locked in federal prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, while the Justice Department battled to detain me "indefinitely" up to 10 years, without a hearing or guilty plea. Worst yet, they demanded the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, in a violent effort to chemically lobotomize the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.

Critically, because my legal case was controlled by civilian Courts, my Defense had a forum to fight back. The Judge was an independent arbiter. And that made all the difference. If this law on military detentions had been active, my situation would have been hopeless. The Patriot Act was bad enough. Mercifully, Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey is a preeminent legal scholar who recognized the greater impact of my case. Even so, he faced a terrible choice —declaring me "incompetent to stand trial," so my case could be killed—or creating dangerous legal precedents tied to secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony and indefinite detention—from the Patriot Act's arsenal of weapons against truth tellers—that would impact all defendants in the U.S. Courts.

It was a hideous choice—The judicial farce was more ugly because it stamped me a "religious maniac" for believing in God—a ludicrous argument. It lined up beautifully, however, with Congress' desire to bastardize the "incompetence" of Assets engaged in Pre-War Intelligence. Anything to escape responsibility for their own poor decision making.

To this day, it scorches my heart with rage and betrayal. It was unforgivable on so many levels.

And it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. This was about fighting truth—and protecting powerful leaders in Washington determined to glorify themselves with phony patriotism and media fireworks in the War on Terrorism—a fantasy if there was one.

Read more

Susan Lindauer is the author of "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq," which describes her work as an Asset covering Iraq and Libya, and her arrest on the Patriot Act shortly after requesting to testify before Congress about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and a peace option in Iraq. | Audio interview | Book review

The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary

 

AP

Business Insider

Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all – this is a must read. 

By the end of next week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons -- without charge and without trial. 

This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you "indefinite detention" for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.

Details: There is a scary provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (fiscal year 2012) which is typically passed by Congress each and every year to continue funding our military operations around the world.

This provision is not a mistake or error; it has vocal backing from some of the most powerful Senators in Washington, including Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin.

The imminent passage of this bill containing the provision, which appears VERY likely at this point, would put our civil rights on par with countries like Saudi Arabia and China. 

Read more

Wired: The FBI's Digital Collection System...Unwarranted Surveillance

Wired: 9 Reasons Wired Readers Should Wear Tinfoil Hats

The FBI's Digital Collection System connects FBI offices and telecom providers around the country to coordinate collection of phone taps for investigations of all sorts.

There’s plenty of reason to be concerned Big Brother is watching.

We’re paranoid not because we have grandiose notions of our self-importance, but because the facts speak for themselves.

Here’s our short list of nine reasons that Wired readers ought to wear tinfoil hats, or at least, fight for their rights and consider ways to protect themselves with encryption and defensive digital technologies.

We know the list is incomplete, so if you have better reasons that we list here, put them in the comments and we’ll make a list based off them.

Until then, remember: Don’t suspect a friend; report him.


Warrantless Wiretapping

The government refuses to acknowledge whether the National Security Agency is secretly siphoning the nation’s electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation alleges. The lawsuit was based on evidence provided by a former AT&T technician Mark Klein that showed that AT&T had installed a secret spying room in an internet hub in San Francisco. The spying got so bad that Attorney General Ashcroft threatened to resign over it.

When a federal judge said a lawsuit on that issue could go forward, Congress passed legislation stopping the case in its tracks. Two American lawyers for an Islamic charity did, however, prevail in their suit that they were wiretapped without warrants, but the Administration is appealing. Much of the program was legalized in 2008 by the FISA Amendments Act.

The FBI has also built a nationwide computer system called the Digital Collection System, connected by fiber optic cables, to collect and analyze wiretaps of all types, including ones used in ultra-secret terrorism investigations. 

Warrantless GPS Tracking

The Obama administration claims Americans have no right to privacy in their public movements. The issue surfaced this month in a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if law enforcement agents should be required to obtain a probable-cause warrant in order to place a GPS tracking device on a citizen’s car. The government admitted to the Supreme Court that it thinks it would have the power to track the justices’ cars without a warrant.

The invasive technology allows police, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies to engage in covert round-the-clock surveillance over an extended period of time, collecting vast amounts of information about anyone who drives the vehicle that is being tracked. The Justice Department has said that law enforcement agents employ GPS as a crime-fighting tool with “great frequency,” and GPS retailers have told Wired that they’ve sold thousands of the devices to the feds. 

Tracking Devices in Your Pocket

That mobile phone in your pocket chronicles almost everything. Once-secret software developed by a private company pretty much chronicles all you do on your smartphone and sends it to the carriers. The carriers themselves keep a wealth of information, such as text messages, call-location data, and PINs — though none of them disclose to their customers what data they store or how long they keep the data.

Law enforcement can get at much of that historical data — and often get real-time tracking information without proving probable cause to a judge. 

Fake Cell Phone Towers

You make a call on your cellphone thinking the only thing standing between you and the recipient of your call is your carrier’s cellphone tower. In fact, that tower your phone is connecting to just might be a boobytrap set up by law enforcement to ensnare your phone signals and maybe even the content of your calls.

So-called stingrays are one of the new high-tech tools that authorities are using to track and identify you. The devices, about the size of a suitcase, spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting to the tower, as they would to a real cellphone tower.

The government maintains that the stingrays don’t violate Fourth Amendment rights, since Americans don’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower. While the technology sounds ultra-new, the feds have had this in their arsenal for at least 15 years, and used a stingray to bust the notorious hacker Kevin Mitnick in 1995. 

The Border Exception

The Fourth Amendment doesn’t exist along the U.S. border. You know that if you’re a close supporter of WikiLeaks or a friend of alleged WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning. You’re no doubt very familiar with the U.S. government’s laptop border search policy, which allows Customs and Border Protection agents to seize and search a laptop belonging to anyone crossing a border into the U.S.

Agents can search through files on a traveler’s laptop, phone or other mobile device, read e-mail or view digital snapshots to uncover incriminating evidence, and they don’t need any reason to do so.

The government argues, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court agrees that searching through a person’s laptop for copyright violations is no different than looking through their suitcase for cocaine — and thus fits squarely with what is known as the ‘border exception’ to the Fourth Amendment. That means a border agent doesn’t need reasonable suspicion, probable cause or even a hunch to open your laptop, seize it and make copies of your data.

At least three supporters of WikiLeaks, including security researcher Jacob Appelbaum. have been subject to the policy and had devices seized and searched as they re-entered the U.S. from foreign trips. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol seem to particularly like searching Appeblaum’s devices and questioning him, despite the fact that Wikileaks has never been charged with a crime in the U.S. 

The “6 Months and It’s the Government’s” Rule

If you’re already not wanting a dose of Prozac, consider that the law allows the government to obtain Americans’ e-mails, without a warrant, if it’s stored on some other company’s servers for more than six months. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, adopted in 1986, turned 25 this year. When written, the law assumed e-mails left on a server for that long were abandoned.

In the age of Gmail, that’s simply ridiculous. A proposal to demand a court warrant for any and all e-mail never got a Senate hearing and was opposed by the Obama administration. 

The Patriot Act

No paranoia list would be complete without including the Patriot Act, the now 10-year-old law adopted in the wake of September 11. The act, which has remained largely the same since former president George W. Bush signed the legislation six weeks after 9/11, gives the government, among other things, the power to acquire phone, banking and other records via the power of a so-called “national security letter,” which does not require a court warrant.

National security letters, perhaps the most invasive facet of the law, are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, bank records and arguably websites you have visited.

The FBI need merely assert, in writing, that the information is “relevant” to an ongoing terrorism or national security investigation. Nearly everyone who gets a national security letter is prohibited from even disclosing that they’ve received one. More than 200,000 letters have been issued by the FBI, despite a series of stinging reports from the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, who found FBI agents weren’t just routinely sloppy; they also violated the law.

Moreover, a decade after Bush’s signature, information is sketchy about how the law is being used in practice. For instance, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) claims the government applies a far broader, and classified, legal interpretation of the Patriot Act’s power to let the government seize most anything it deems relevant to an investigation (Section 215).

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” the Senate Intelligence Committee member said in a recent interview with Wired. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.” 

Government Malware

It’s little known, but governments have their own malware/spyware that it deploys against suspected lawbreakers. The FBI’s version, the last time we checked, was called CIPAV. Once an FBI agent convinced a target to install it (by clicking an e-mail attachment or link on the web), the spyware reports back everything that computer does online.

German states recently came under fire for misusing a similar program that reportedly could turn on a computer’s camera and take screenshots. And a recent Wall Street Journal story catalogs a surveillance software company which trumpeted its ability to infect users via a fake iTunes update. The company sells its wares to governments around the world. 

Known Unknowns

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took an unfair amount of abuse for his deployment of the phrase “known unknowns.” And it’s these known unknowns that might be the most disturbing part of the list. For instance, does the government think the Patriot Act allows it to force Google to turn over information about anyone who has searched for certain keywords using orders that come with a gag order? Is the NSA sucking up everything we say on our phones and that we do online, under the theory it pushed in a court case that it’s not a search until a human actually looks at the data?

How often do police investigating a crime ask wireless providers to give them a list of all the people whose phones were in use in the area when they think a crime was committed? What kind of sweeping surveillance orders have been issued under the 1998 law that Congress passed to legalize much of the warrantless wiretapping of Americans? And finally, how long is the government storing all this data, and how can we be sure that our future governments won’t start using this data to target Americans based on activities protected by the First Amendment?

And no — a tinfoil hat won’t help you at all.