U.S. spying raises new privacy fears

With confirmation from the national intelligence chief that a domestic spying program extends beyond tapping e-mails and phone calls into other kinds of surveillance, attention is turning to the administration’s data mining and other clandestine technologies that could be used against people in the United States.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., in a July 27 letter that the scope of intelligence activities authorized by an executive order in 2001 is broader than the National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic wiretapping. One thing that is clear: The government’s appetite for looking into data held by private companies is only growing. Earlier this summer, the FBI asked Congress for millions of dollars to pay communications companies to maintain massive databases of customer records.

[ See also: NSA guru lauds security intelligence sharing ]

Not just telephone companies and ISPs have been subject to growing data search demands. The government has searched the records of hotels and apartment buildings, among other businesses, under surveillance powers expanded by the USA Patriot Act.

Businesses are largely silent when it comes to discussing such demands, but in 2005, when the Patriot Act was up for review by Congress, the concerns of corporate America were revealed. Manufacturers, financial institutions, real estate companies and others complained that the scope of data searching imposed a growing financial burden. Additionally, they said that confidential files, trade secrets and other proprietary information could be too easily obtained and spread around under the Patriot Act’s expanded police powers.

With such concerns voiced over surveillance that took place within the confines of the Patriot Act, it follows that businesses are similarly concerned about surveillance taking place outside any law. But without the catalyst of a law up for revision, businesses have little incentive to speak up despite any concerns. What’s more, when considering a clandestine program, it’s difficult to make concrete criticisms.

“I think we saw a lot of activism around trying to change the [Patriot Act] because there was something there to grab hold of,” says Linda Ramsdell, owner of The Galaxy Bookshop in Hardwick, Vt. “I think the concern now is greater or equal to that, but [the NSA program] is this amorphous thing. How do you even get at it?”

While government data mining initiatives have been reported in the press without confirmation or denial by the administration, there could be any number of other surveillance and search operations taking place outside the law.

“The sky is the limit,” says Gregory Nojeim, senior Counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Until the Congress gets to the bottom of this and determines exactly what the president authorized the intelligence community to collect, it’s impossible to know the extent to which the authorization skirted or flaunted the law.”

One possibility is that the government is directly accessing the networks of private communications companies, which is different from traditional wiretapping.

“They would get a stream of data as opposed to an individual’s particularized communications,” Nojeim says. “Instead of getting your phone call, they would get yours and others and separate the calls out.”

Most of the public criticism of the warrantless domestic spying program centers of concerns about privacy rights, but violations of the Fourth Amendment can have broader implications.

“I think it’s important to remember that the limits on what can be done with the information that is obtained through these programs are not sufficient to ensure that it wouldn’t be used against a person in improper circumstances,” Nojeim says. “When privacy rights are abused they can have real consequences.”