An SPP/NAU update ..

Introductory Comment by Connie Fogal, leader, CAP/PAC

The REAL ID practice is coming to birth in various Canadian provinces as a
result of federal and provincial commitment to a North A merican integration
under provincial buy in to the 2001 Smart Border Declaration and the 2005
Security and Prosperty Partnership Agreement. The new liberty stripping
identification is being slipped into Canadian drivers' licenses incrementally
in various provinces without a peep of dissent from media or any provincial or
federal opposition parties.

The best the NDP and the Greens have mustered to date in opposition to the
integration of North America is to work for renegotiation on NAFTA ( a uselss
and deceptive action). They are totally silent on the police state apparatus
coming into effect (of which biometric identifiers in drivers' licenses is one
part).

They are silent on the attack on Canadian liberty by our antiterrorist act,
and they refuse to acknowledge the deliberate stifling of dissent by that
act,and they refuse to expose the real role of the September 11, 2001
explosions in three New York buildings one of which was never hit by a plane as
being the justification for the deliberate ultimate elimination of free
citizenry under a police state apparatus.

At least in the USA there are some elected forces who can read and who
understand the writing on the wall, and who still have the jam to defend their
people.

Connie Fogal, leader CAP/PAC

CANADIAN ACTION PARTY/PARTI ACTION CANADIENNE
Subject: Fw: Homeland Security blinks on Real ID



http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9909928-38.html?tag=nefd.lede
April 2, 2008 6:52 PM PDT

Homeland Security blinks on Real ID: No hassles on May 11

WASHINGTON--In the long-running Real ID staring match, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security ended up being the first to blink.

Homeland Security announced Wednesday that all 50 states and the District of
Columbia will be technically Real ID-compliant by the May 11, 2008 deadline--
even though many states actually have rejected the concept and have zero plans
to embrace a national ID card.

This means Americans will face no new hassles when using their drivers licenses
to enter federal buildings or fly on airplanes starting on May 11. That's a
good thing.

But the way this turned out is so odd it's worth repeating. States including
New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Montana have
enacted laws saying "hell no we'll never comply with Real ID." And Homeland
Security officials carefully ignored those public votes of condemnation,
instead pretending that those states really intend to acquiesce by the next
major deadline of December 31, 2009. (See our special report on Real ID from
earlier this year.)

"Now they've got 18 months to actually finish the process of being able to
issue the cards that will meet the requirements," Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff told a small group of reporters and bloggers here on
Wednesday. "We will have to watch this because the one thing that will be
important is for a state not to be dilatory in completing the process."

That may have been a more serious threat a few years ago, when Chertoff was
beginning his defense of the Real ID Act, which became law as part of a must-
pass tsunami relief and Iraq emergency appropriations bill in 2005.

Now, however, state officials realize that Homeland Security is more likely to
back down than not. The first sign of this came when the agency decided to
treat a request for an extension past May 11 as a formal agreement to comply
with all Real ID rules. The second came when Homeland Security retreated to its
fallback position: even a symbolic gesture on the part of a governor amounted
to full compliance.

A good example of this dynamic is what happened in the last few days involving
Maine, a state that has rejected Real ID in no uncertain terms, and was the
only will-have-trouble-at-airports state as of this morning. Its legislation
approved last year says that it "refuses to implement the Real ID Act and
thereby protest the treatment by Congress and the president of the states as
agents of the federal government."

Maine nevertheless asked the feds not to penalize its travelers. Stewart Baker,
Homeland Security assistant secretary for policy, replied in a letter that if
Maine "is prepared to commit" to embracing Real ID by 5 p.m. on April 2, "we
will grant an extension conditioned upon performance of these commitments."
(The commitments Baker requested include using a Homeland Security identity
verification system, using facial recognition technology so someone can't get
two licenses, and so on.)

In response, Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, wrote back to Baker saying in
part:

I will seek legislation to halt Maine's current practice of issuing licenses
to those not present lawfully in the United States.

I will submit legislation, which includes a funding source and
appropriations, that will adopt three changes in Maine's licensing processes:

Maine will enter into an agreement with USCIS and utilize the Systematic
Alien Verification for Entitlements Program to verify DHS documents presented
by non-citizens.

Maine will begin capturing and maintaining photographs of each individual
applying for a license or state identification card, even if no license is
issued.

It worked. Maine got a green check mark, and its licenses will continue to be
valid for federal purposes after May 11--even though Baldacci was, for the most
part, merely promising to introduce legislation. And the Maine legislators, who
soundly rebuked the Bush administration by nearly unanimous votes last year,
will be the ones to vote on it.

Last month, Montana took a similar approach. Its governor, Brian Schweitzer, a
Democrat, has repeatedly denounced Real ID and even called on his counterparts
(PDF) in other states to oppose it. But Homeland Security dutifully accepted a
relatively hostile letter from Schweitzer--saying he will never "authorize
implementation of the Real ID Act"--as good enough.

Now that the May 11 deadline has become effectively meaningless, the next major
deadline is December 31, 2009, at which point Homeland Security currently says
it will require "certification that the state has achieved the benchmarks set
forth in the Material Compliance Checklist."

In political terms, that's a long time--and a new presidential administration--
away. Some opponents of Real ID are already predicting that no state will
actually comply with the deadline, or, alternatively, the next administration
will find a way to quietly dispose of Real ID without much fanfare.

"DHS is not in power here," said Jim Harper, the director of information policy
studies at the free-market Cato Institute. "The states are in power. DHS has
done all it could, but from a position of weakness...DHS put the best face it
could on its capitulation to states with backbone. A lot more states will
recognize that they own this issue, they control this debate."

News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.

Today's FISA News Roundup: EFF deeplinksDHS,

February 6th, 2008

FISA News Roundup

Posted by Hugh D'Andrade

As the Senate prepares to vote on amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this week -- including the crucial Dodd-Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity from the bill -- the web is lighting up with news and analysis. A few highlights:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell sent a letter to Senate leaders reminding them (in case they have forgotten) that the President will veto any FISA bill that does not include immunity for telecoms like AT&T that cooperated in the NSA's domestic spying program.

If any of these amendments [striking or altering immunity conditions in the bill] is part of the bill that is presented to the President, we, as well as the President’s other senior advisors, will recommend that he veto the bill.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stood up to Mukasey's bullying and told it like it is:

This veto threat is part of a White House strategy to jam the bill through Congress with procedural maneuvers and political gamesmanship. We call on Republicans to allow the legislative process to work so that the Senate can pass a strong bipartisan bill.

Meanwhile, in a call to right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh meant to shore up support for the telco immunity, Vice President Dick Cheney was uncharacteristically blunt in admitting the private sector's cooperation in the NSA program:

Those companies helped specifically at our request. They've done yeoman duty for the country.

Senator Feingold told Newsweek why Americans dislike the idea of immunity:

People see their own personal liberties affected. And we've seen that the telecom immunity does offend people. People may be nervous about giving a free pass [on immigration]. But what's gonna bother them even more are the types of things I'm describing here: the level to which their privacy is being subjected to a "trust me" government that impacts their daily freedom and privacy. It really is disturbing to people with any kind of common sense at all.

Senator Rockefeller had some worrisome things to say on the floor today about the Senate's FISA bill, as Wired's Threat Level notes. General warrants, anyone?

Unlike traditional [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] application orders which involve collection on one individual target, the new FISA provisions create a system of collection. The courts role in this system of collection is not to consider probable cause on individual targets but to ensure that procedures used to collect intelligence are adequate. The courts' determination of the adequacy of procedures therefore impacts all electronic communications gathered under the new mechanisms, even if it involves thousands of targets.

And the LA Times Editorial board reminded readers that the telecoms have a responsibility to uphold the law as the last line of defense against illegal government surveillance:

It's important that phone companies and Internet providers cooperate fully with legal surveillance requests, and that they not be put at risk for doing so. On warrantless wiretaps, however, those firms are the only potential check against unlawful snooping. If they're protected from any liability, they will have no reason to question the legal basis for the government's requests.

The Senate will be voting on these amendments any day now, and the question of whether to hold telecoms accountable will be resolved one way or the other. Now is the time to take action -- call or email your Senator to urge them to vote Yes on the Dodd-Feingold amendment!

[Permalink]

February 6th, 2008

President Tries to Scrap New Open Government Office

Posted by Marcia Hofmann

Just weeks after signing legislation that significantly updated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the first time in more than a decade, the President is attempting to single-handedly strike a major part of the new law.

Among other improvements to the FOIA, the OPEN Government Act created an ombudsman to settle problems between FOIA requesters and federal agencies, as well as keep tabs on how well the FOIA works in practice. Rather than put the new office in the Department of Justice, which has been in charge of the government's FOIA policy for more than 30 years and represents the government in FOIA lawsuits filed by requesters, Congress decided that it should be part of the National Archives and Records Administration to help maintain its independence.

It seemed that President Bush was behind this idea when he signed the OPEN Government Act into law on December 31. His proposed budget for 2009, however, includes a provision that would "repeal" the ombudsman's office and shift its funding to the Justice Department.

If the President's attempt to get rid the ombudsman is successful, it would be tremendously unfortunate for both the public and the government. This new office is meant to give requesters a way to resolve FOIA disputes without having to resort to litigation, which would be cheaper and less burdensome for people who have trouble getting documents from the government, and might reduce the number of FOIA lawsuits that the government has to defend against. The creation of the ombudsman's office is a good idea for improving the FOIA process, which doesn't work as well as it should. The President should see if it makes things better before deciding it's not worth the money.

EFF has joined a coalition of more than 40 organizations asking Congress to provide funds for the ombudsmen to work out of the National Archives as Congress intended. You can read our objections to the budget proposal here.

To learn more about EFF's Freedom of Information Act litigation, click here.

[Permalink]

February 6th, 2008

CNET's "Real ID vs. the States" Series Covers Looming Showdown

Posted by Richard Esguerra

This week, CNET launched its four-part series covering Real ID -- the dangerous federal plan to create a national ID card that presents a massive threat to citizens' privacy, among other critical flaws.

The REAL ID Act was signed into law in 2005 and forces states to standardize driver's licenses in a way that turns them into a national ID. In January 2008, the Department of Homeland Security announced a set of standards to fulfill the vague mandate passed by Congress, but were met with opposition from a broad stable of parties -- beyond the long roster of privacy organizations and consumer advocates, the House Committee on Homeland Security, Senator Patrick Leahy (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee), and a number of other key members of Congress spoke out against the regulations.

So far, the CNET series has been comprehensive in its coverage of the issue, describing the complicated timeline; showing which states have assented to, wavered on, and bravely opposed the costly federal mandate; and depicting the chaos facing travelers and citizens across the country.

[Permalink]