In Colorado Big Brother is Watching Part 1 of a Two Part Series By Phillip Reynes

November 30, 2008 by phil

The full scale of the assault on our civil liberties is hard to understate and its scope includes Colorado. Fusion Centers have sprung up around the country and Colorado of course has one. This along with the recruiting of thousands of private sector workers like the guy who reads your electric meter, delivers your mail, or installs your cable to act as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” entrusted with the job hunting for suspicious activity, not just terrorism. These private sector operatives file Suspicious Activity Reports (called SAR’s) who’s subjects are to include any criminal activity or suspicious activity. The scope of what these private sector spies report on is overly broad when one looks at their guidelines;

- taking measurements
- using binoculars
- taking pictures or video footage “with no apparent esthetic value”
- abandoning vehicle
- drawing diagrams
- taking notes
- espousing extremist views

The vast majority of us engage in at least one if not more of these activities almost every day. Sadly many of the views expressed here at Colorado Indymedia are considered by some extremist. While it is true that a terrorists breathes it would be ridiculous to investigate every person who breathes just as it is crazy to investigate every person who does one of the above points. Your meter reader, cable guy, or postman may see you doing one of these things and report it to your local Fusion Center.

It is hard to imagine that most Americans would support such a huge step toward a surveillance society. Unjustified and unwarranted fear and the manipulation of that fear is what is used to make you and me and our fellow citizens go along with this giant step toward the loss of civil liberties (1).

The manipulation of public perceptions and the use of fear as a manipulative tool is well documented by several research articles which all come to similar conclusions. The conclusion to the reference sighted above, Terrorism and the Politics of Fear, ends with the following:

“The rituals of control are easier to accept as they become more pervasive and
institutionalized. The politics of fear with a national or international justification
is more symbolically compelling than “mere crime in the streets.” Accompanying
heightened terror alerts are routine frisks, intrusive surveillance, and
the pervasive voyeuristic camera, scanning the environment for all suspicious
activity. Fear is perceived as crime and terrorism, whereas police and military
forces are symbolically joined as protectors. The key point about physical security, surveillance (Staples, 2000), and body checking is to communicate the format of control to people as objects rather than subjects; they are objects to authorities, mere bodies that can be electronically waned, asked to disrobe, patted down, felt up, and unveiled like produce: They seek to reduce individuals to objects rather than involving them as subjects. The element of direct, physical coercion is either open or poorly concealed and there is no further goal than that of either neutralizing the threat or making it manageable. (Hornqvist, 2004, p. 41)”

This article deals with the consequences of this abhorrent manipulation which seems to be going on by both the media and our government with little critical examination by the public. Fore more on the politics of fear which is outside the scope of this article please refer to the end note sighted above.

The surveillance our government conducts in the name of anti-terrorism has expanded to include organizations encompassing a large spectrum of or political life from the far right to the far left like the ACLU, Copwatch, Greenpeace, PETA, anti war groups, and just about anyone who does not agree with government policy. A new type of intelligence organization is emerging in American life: Fusion Centers. These state, local and regional institutions were at first created to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. This new domestic intelligence agency has over 800,000 operatives! Though Fusion centers developed independently in different states and remain quite diverse from one another, for many the scope of their mission has quickly expanded—with the support and encouragement of the federal government—to cover “all crimes and all hazards.”

The types of information Fusion Centers seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even members of the private sector.

These new Fusion Centers, over 40 of which have been established around the country, raise very serious privacy issues at a time when new technology, government powers and zeal in the “war on terrorism” are combining to threaten Americans’ privacy at an unparalleled level. Moreover, there are serious questions about whether data fusion is an effective means of preventing terrorism in the first place, and whether funding the development of these centers is a prudent investment of finite public safety resources. Yet federal, state and local governments are increasing their investment in fusion centers without properly assessing whether they serve a necessary purpose.

There’s nothing wrong with the government seeking to do a better job of properly sharing legitimately acquired information about law enforcement investigations—indeed, that is one of the things that 9/11 tragically showed is very much needed. Yet in democratic society intelligence information—especially information about American citizens and other residents—needs to be carried out with the utmost care and a health respect for our constitution. That is because more and more, the amount of information available on each one of us is enough to amass a very detailed representation of our lives. And because security agencies are moving toward using such portraits to profile how “suspicious” we look in a sort of high tech profiling. Profiling is something no one wants to be subjected too.

New institutions, especially large ones that are 800,000 strong, like Fusion Centers need to be planned in a public, and open manner, and their implications for privacy and other key values central to our society should be carefully thought out and debated. And like any powerful institution in a democracy, they must be constructed in a carefully bound and limited manner with sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuse. Unfortunately, the new Fusion Centers have not met these vital requirements and are presently actively seeking to avoid meeting these requirements.

Since no two Fusion Centers are alike, because they are technically under state control even though they are supported by federal agents, it is easier said than done to make generalized statements about them. Clearly not all Fusion Centers are engaging in improper intelligence activities and not all Fusion Center operations raise civil liberties or privacy concerns it is obvious that an alarming number of them do indeed raise serious concern for anyone who values the Bill of Rights. The lack of a proper legal framework to regulate their activities is troublesome. Broadly concerns over Fusion Centers revolve around five issues according to a recent ACLU report (you can get a PDF copy at : http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf )

• Ambiguous Lines of Authority. The participation of agencies from multiple jurisdictions in fusion centers allows the authorities to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection while evading accountability and oversight through the practice of “policy shopping.”

• Private Sector Participation. Fusion centers are incorporating private-sector corporations into the intelligence process, breaking down the arm’s length relationship that protects the privacy of innocent Americans who are employees or customers of these companies, and increasing the risk of a data breach.

• Military Participation. Fusion centers are involving military personnel in law enforcement activities in troubling ways.

• Data Fusion = Data Mining. Federal fusion center guidelines encourage whole sale data collection and manipulation processes that threaten privacy by synthesizing a wide array of private data and federal records. See the chart near the end of the article for an eye opening view at what little in the way of privacy we as citizens have.

• Excessive Secrecy. Fusion centers are hobbled by excessive secrecy, which limits public oversight, impairs their ability to acquire essential information and impedes their ability to fulfill their stated mission, bringing their ultimate value into doubt.
The History of the Fusion Center

After 9/11, pressure grew for a larger state role in counterterrorism. At first, the FBI attempted to increase intelligence sharing with state and local law enforcement by expanding their Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). But state and local officials continued to feel that the federal government was not sharing enough information to allow them to prevent terrorist attacks.(2) This aggravation with the JTTF system developed because while state and local law enforcement officers participating in JTTFs were given security clearances, secrecy rules barred these officers from sharing any intelligence they acquired with other state and local colleagues who did not have such clearances. From a police department’s point of view, it did them little good to send personnel into a task force only to have them cut off from and, for all practical purposes, no longer working for their departments. One city, Portland, Oregon, actually withdrew its officers from the Portland JTTF because of this problem. (3)

Yet another issue fueling the appearance of fusion centers was a trend within policing of moving away from customary law enforcement methods toward what was dubbed “intelligence-led policing,” or ILP. ILP focuses on the gathering and analysis of “intelligence” in the pursuit of proactive strategies “geared toward crime control and quality of life issues” but now used for criminal investigation.(4) One law enforcement official described ILP as policing that is “robust enough” to resist “terrorism as well as crime and disorder.”(5) The Fusion Centers grew in popularity among state and local law enforcement officials as they sought to establish a role in defending homeland security by developing their own intelligence capabilities while at the same time getting federal grant money and increasing their own bureaucratic power. The Federal government liked the Fusion Centers because they could supply personal and get access to there intelligence but make an end run around some federal regulations they found burdensome. These centers evolved largely separately of one another, starting in about 2003, and were individually tailored to meet local and regional needs. This growth took place in the absence of any legal framework for regulating fusion centers’ activities.

This lack of regulation quickly led to “mission creep,” (a problem with all bureaucracies, especially right wing conservatively governed ones) in which Fusion Centers originally justified as anti-terrorism initiatives rapidly drifted toward an “all crimes, all-hazards” policy “flexible enough for use in all emergencies.”(6) The leadership at some Fusion Centers has admitted that they switched to an “all-hazards” approach so they could apply for a broader range of grants, and because it was impossible to create ‘buy in’ amongst local law enforcement agencies and other public sectors (like state legislators) if a Fusion Center was solely focused on counterterrorism, as the center’s partners often rightly didn’t feel threatened by terrorism, nor did they think that their community would produce would-be terrorists.(7)

This extension of the articulated mission of fusion centers reflects an evolving search for purpose, bounded on one side by the need not to duplicate the mission of existing institutions such as federal agencies and state Emergency Operations Centers, and on the other by the desire to do something that is actually useful.

Federal Support of the Development of Fusion Centers

As fusion centers proliferated, national efforts at bolstering, defining and standardizing these institutions on the part of governors and the federal government began to intensify.(8) The federal government began providing facilities, manpower and financial resources to fuel the growth of these state and local intelligence centers. In 2006, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security produced a report, “Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era,” which outlined the federal government’s vision for the centers, and sought to encourage and systematize their growth. “Intelligence sharing among states and jurisdictions will become seamless and efficient when each fusion center uses a common set of guidelines,” the agencies proclaimed. (9)
The Guidelines defined a fusion center as a “collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.” (10)

These goals are laudable and appropriate for any law enforcement intelligence operation, as we all want the police to be able to effectively protect us from criminals and terrorists. But the federal government intends for Fusion Centers to broaden their sources of data “beyond criminal intelligence, to include federal intelligence as well as public and private sector data.” (11)

A Dark History of Abuse of Secret Intelligence Powers

Expanding the scope of an intelligence agency’s mission in that way—without oversight and in secret—is an invitation for abuse this is especially true when dealing with military and law enforcement agencies, which have a long history of viewing individual rights as an obstacle to be gotten around or overcome. And there is a long, nasty history of abuse surrounding vaguely defined, pro-active “intelligence” as carried out by domestic law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal level. Law enforcement personnel and agencies have actively joined with corporations to track, surveil and harass the labor, anti-war, civil rights and other movements pushing for social and political change.

Urban police forces long maintained political intelligence units (also known as Anti- Subversive Squads, or Red Squads), which spied upon and sabotaged numerous peaceful groups—often in utterly illegal ways—throughout the twentieth century. For its part, the FBI ran a domestic intelligence/counterintelligence program called COINTELPRO that quickly grew from a legitimate effort to protect national security into an effort to suppress political dissent through illegal activities. Frequent targets were groups that criticized the FBI itself. The Senate panel that investigated COINTELPRO (the “Church Committee”) in the 1970s found that a combination of factors led law enforcers to become law breakers. But the crucial factor was their easy access to damaging personal information as a result of the unrestrained collection of domestic intelligence. (12)

The Church Committee found that part of the problem with COINTELPRO was that no one outside the FBI was ever supposed to know it existed. (13) No one could object to activities they weren’t aware of and, as investigators found, “the absence of disapproval” was “interpreted by the Bureau as sufficient authorization to continue an activity.” (14) Secrecy created a haven from the public eye where abuse could flourish.

Fusion Centers Today

Nevertheless, efforts to build fusion centers have continued, often in seeming ignorance or disregard of this dark history. Today there are 43 state, local and regional fusion centers in operation around the United States, with at least 15 more in development. No two fusion centers seem to be exactly alike, either in form or function, so it is difficult to conduct a generalized assessment of their value as compared to the potential risks they pose. In addition, they operate in considerable secrecy, so it is difficult for the public to evaluate what any particular fusion center does, much less what the network of fusion centers across the country is doing.

It is clear that not all fusion centers are engaging in improper or worrisome activities, and not all fusion center functions raise civil liberties or privacy concerns. But the statements and activities of some, combined with the push to standardize and weave together these state institutions, do raise questions about the overall direction in which they are headed. In particular, the federal government’s vision as outlined in its Guidelines raises many concerns, as does the continuing lack of a legal framework to regulate the centers’ activities.
Colorado’s Fusion Center, A.K.A., Colorado Information Analysis Center or CIAC (PRONOUNCED LIKE “KAYAK”)

The Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC) was established in 2005 under the command of the Colorado State Patrol with the fallowing mission statement.

The mission of the Colorado Information Analysis Center is to provide an integrated, multi-disciplined, information sharing network to collect, analyze, and disseminate information to stakeholders in a timely manner in order to protect the citizens and the critical infrastructure of Colorado

This sort of vague and simplistic mission statement is so broad and diffuse as to tell us very little as is the State of Colorado Homeland Security Strategy Document of 2005 that governs the CIAC’s mission. These documents are deliberately vague because these types of secret organizations most probably can’t flourish openly if the public really knew there missions real activities.

CIAC is, like many Colorado institutions, born out of the conservative republican environment that has pervaded so much of Colorado’s state government especially law enforcement. Because of the secrecy involved it is hard to get an exact picture of the activities of CIAC but some assumptions can be made. Like much of the conservative right in America these are basically people with little imagination and a strong xenophobic tendency who mistrust anyone that is not like them, i.e., God, apple pie and country; they do not tolerate dissent or debate and view the press and civil liberties as an obstacle. If you doubt this look at who is on CIAC’s governing board which consists of the executive director of the Department of Public Safety, the director of the Division of Fire Safety and the state’s lieutenant governor, along with representatives from CEMA, the County Sheriffs Association of Colorado, the Colorado Chiefs of Police Association, the Colorado Department of Public Health, the Department of Corrections and the Colorado Commission on Indian Affairs. Unlike other states, such as Iowa and Minnesota, the Colorado fusion center does not include any representatives of civil liberties groups on its governing body.If we take this as our premise then I think it fair to say that CIAC will most likely fallow the federal directives about Fusion centers almost to the letter. So the starting point for us will be CIAC’s web page( https://www.ciac.co.gov/index.cfm ).

When you go there you will find two things that jump out at you. First is the column to the right on the page called eight signs of terrorism. Second you will see a tips link so you can spy, or maybe just harass that pesky neighbor you don’t like, that directs you to a form that lets you be an anti-terror agent! You can rest assured that what you enter here will get into literally dozens of data bases in the federal government. I know your thinking that this can’t be. That all anyone would need to do to wreck there data is just flood them with junk tips but it is true and that might not be an easy way to trip up the system since they engage in data mining at a level that is shocking. But regardless a lot of junk has to get into the federal data bases. The idea of enlisting private citizens as intelligence agents drew widespread criticism, and Operation TIPS, a federal program to turn your mail man and meter reader into a federal agent, was eventually abandoned. (15)

“This is the resurrection of the TIPS program in many ways,” German says of the fusion centers, noting that in Colorado hundreds of law enforcement officials, emergency service providers and utility workers were recently dispatched as “terrorism liaison officers”(TLOs) to report non criminal suspicious activity to CIAC. (16)

Suspicious activity is defined broadly as actions that could lead to terrorism and includes reporting individuals taking notes or photos or talking publicly about extremist political beliefs.

“This system is really turning every state and local police officer into a spy for the intelligence community,” German says, noting that the information collected by citizens could make it to the Central Intelligence Agency or the military. “They’re not just stand-alone centers; they’re actually networked to ever other center, and it is part of a larger program.”

Yes let’s look at a real example of this kind of citizen spying in action. “On a recent day, the CIAC got an e-mail from a woman who reported three men taking photographs of the lower downtown Denver building where she works.” This was reported recently from the operations manger of CIAC own mouth.(17) What the hell kind of tip is this no license plate, nothing but a couple of men who seemed Arab. What fun it would be if you where a malicious person and reported Arab men coming and going from your neighbors house at night with some frequency. I bet he would be watched or at a minim he would find his name on a data base he did not want to be on. His credit cards would be checked his bank statements checked and much more. You doubt this? Let’s look at why you should not doubt it.

The range of information to be collected by service providers who participate in the fusion center effort could include: all sources of financial records kept by banking institutions; all contacts with the criminal justice system by criminals and non-criminals, all forms of education (day cares, preschools, primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and technical schools); government issued licenses and permits, access to medical records held by hospitals, public health, and primary care physicians, hospitality and lodging, information and telecommunication service providers, military facilities and defense industrial base; postal and shipping services, private security (alarm companies, armored car companies, investigative firms, corporate security offices); public works; social services; and transportation(18). The appendices of the Fusion Center Guidelines list the following as data collection targets (19):

Banking & Finance

IT/Telecom Banks
Credit Cards Co.
Credit Reports
Securities firms
Financial services
ISPs
Telecommunication
E-mail Providers
Cyber Security Co

Health & Education

Day Care Centers
Preschools
Colleges/Universities
Technical Schools
Mental Health
Physician Patient Info
Local Hospitals
Private EMS
Veterinary

Jails/Prisons/Court Records

Gang Information.
Names of Associates
Relatives
Jail/Prison Visitors
Biographical Info.
Traffic Accident
Tribal Law Enforcement
County Clerk
US Courts

Federal, State, Local Gov. (Permits Licenses)

Game and Fish
DMV Records
Vehicle Registrations
Civil Records
Property Appraiser
Mortgages
Deeds
Civil Suits

Hospitality & Lodging

Gaming Industry
Sports Authority
Sporting facilities
Amusement parks
Cruise lines
Hotels, motels, Resorts
Convention Centers

Along with a host of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, private companies also participated in the Public Safety Fusion Group, which included Walt Disney World Company, Fidelity Investments, Microsoft, and Archer Daniels Midland. The goal is to, within the fusion center environment, integrate “nontraditional customers of information and intelligence'' with traditional customers of information analysis. Fusing of information based on an identified threat, criminal predicate, or public safety by the seamless collection, collating, blending, analyzing, disseminating, and use of information intelligence is the goal.

The intelligence and analysis of information is proposed to be based on the needs of users, with the list of users including all levels and types of law enforcement, intelligence community, DOD, private sector entities it appears the official uses could be limitless.
Now let’s go back to our example of the malicious neighbor who does not like you. He goes online to the sight mentioned in the end notes. He files a suspicious activity report on you. All he needs to do is embellish a little as the criteria for what is suspicious activity is very broad. If he adds a small white lie or to then you could really be in trouble. Let’s suppose he says you have voiced extremist views and have held meetings with what appears to be groups of Arab men at your home. You can rest confidently knowing that CIAC will be following this up.

Look at the chart above. Look at the data that CIAC will reference in regards to you and your family. You will have little in the way of privacy. Your name might even end up on several data bases at the federal level. You will not know it but if your name does end up on these federal data bases your travel will be tracked and in some cases even restricted. This has indeed happened to people.(20)

The real horror of all this is just how easily the system can be corrupted by volumes of false data from junk tips like the example. In our example above of a malicious neighbor we see a mean individual bent on hurting his neighbor. Most people are not mean but there are a lot of people who are just a little off if you get my drift. The paranoid office worker the over zealous neighborhood watch captain (I have met some that are outright militant in the duties) are examples of how large amounts of bad data can be put into the system. Importantly let’s not forget terrorist or political activist that now have the opportunity to flood the data base with thousands of false reports that will take up time and resources to investigate.

In Part II of this article I will cover some things you as individuals can do to protect themselves. I will also introduce you to some of the players in CIAC who rightly belong on a list of Coloradoans who should live in infamy as enemies of civil liberties the constitution and the bill of rights.

Notes:
(1) Terrorism and the Politics of Fear: by David L. Altheide; Arizona State University; found online at http://csc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/4/4ong15

(2) Todd Masse, Siobhan O’neil and John Rollins, Congressional Research Service, CSR Report For Congress: Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress (July 6th , 2007), AKA, CRS Fusion Center Report, see note 2 on page 18.

(3) See, mayor wants Portland out of the anti-terrorism task force, kgw.com and the Associated Press, April 22nd 2005, http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_042205_news_joint_terrorism_ta...

(4) Democratic Staff of the H.R. Comm. On Homeland Security, 110th Cong., Leap: A Law Enforcement Assistance and Partnership Strategy Prepared at thee Request of Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, Ranking Member 5 (2006), http://hsc-democrats.house.gov/sitedocuments/20060927193035-23713.pdf

(5) Id. at 5 (quoting Michael Downing, Commander, Los Angeles Police Department Counterterrorism/Criminal Intelligence Bureau).

(6) CRS Fusion Center Report, supra note 2, at 22 n.60.

(7) CRS Fusion Center Report, supra, note 2, at 21.

(8) CRS Fusion Center Report, supra note 2, at 18-19.

(9) Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era, at iii, (Aug. 2006), Hereafter referred to as Guidelines

(10) Guidelines, supra note 9, at 2.

(11) CRS Fusion Center Report, supra note 2, at 1.

(12) Select Comm. to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, U.S. Senate, 94th Congress, Final Report on Supplemental Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans (book III), S.Rep. No. 94-755, at 10 (1976)

(13) Id. at 11.

(14) Id. at 12.

(15) In 2002 the Bush administration attempted to implement Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System ), encouraging private residents — including utility and postal service workers — to report suspicious activity to the federal government, storing reports in various law enforcement databases.

(16) Mike german is a former FBI agent and counter terrorism expert who is now a council for the ACLU. See the article “Colorado ‘fusion center’ to step up intelligence gathering during DNC; Federal law enforcement and military will monitor 'suspicious activities' for security threats.” By Erin Rosa 7/30/08 in the Colorado Independent found online at: http://coloradoindependent.com/4424/colorado-fusion-center-to-step-up-in...

(17) See the article Colorado ‘fusion center’ to step up intelligence gathering during DNC: Federal law enforcement and military will monitor 'suspicious activities' for security threats, By Erin Rosa 7/30/08, it can be found online at http://coloradoindependent.com/4416/report-fusion-centers-called-new-dom...

(18) Go to http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/ to see a report by the Electronic Information Privacy Center.

(19) This information comes directly from the federal government. Click on this link to get the document see appendix C of the document Fusion Center Guidelines, Department of Homeland security, you can download the PDF at http://it.ojp.gov/documents/fusion_center_guidelines_law_enforcement.pdf

(20) See the ACLU report: Reclaiming Our Rights; Declaration of First Amendment Rights and Grievances, Dec. 2007, by Dr. James Thomas Tucker, Policy Counsel, pages 8 and 9. This report is easily found on the ACLU web site, www.aclu.org

Permalink