This is my story on the Chaos Communication Congress computer hacking conference that I filed for Wired News fom Berlin yesterday. Great talks here and lots of interesting people.

BERLIN -- When the Austrian government passed a law this year allowing police to install closed-circuit surveillance cameras in public spaces without a court order, the Austrian civil liberties group Quintessenz vowed to watch the watchers.

Members of the organization worked out a way to intercept the camera images with an inexpensive, 1-GHz satellite receiver. The signal could then be descrambled using hardware designed to enhance copy-protected video as it's transferred from DVD to VHS tape.

The Quintessenz activists then began figuring out how to blind the cameras with balloons, lasers and infrared devices.

And, just for fun, the group created an anonymous surveillance system that uses face-recognition software to place a black stripe over the eyes of people whose images are recorded.

Quintessenz members Adrian Dabrowski and Martin Slunksy presented their video-surveillance research at the 22nd annual Chaos Communication Congress here this week. Five hundred hackers jammed into a meeting room for a presentation that fit nicely into CCC's 2005 theme of "private investigations."

Slunksy pointed out that searching for special strings in Google, such as axis-cgi/, will return links that access internet-connected cameras around the world. Quintessenz developers entered these Google results into a database, analyzed the IP addresses and set up a website that gives users the ability to search by country or topic -- and then rate the cameras.

"You can use this to see if you are being watched in your daily life," said Dabrowski.

The conference, hosted by Germany's Chaos Computer Club, featured many discussions on data interception and pushing back the unprecedented onslaught of surveillance technologies.

Even the Dutch, once known as hacker-friendly, politically progressive Europeans, are now fearful and demanding more cameras on their streets, said Rop Gonggrijp, founder of Dutch ISP Xs4All.

Gonggrijp says the Dutch chief of police has announced the intention to store large amounts of surveillance data and mine it to determine who to pressure and question. "People are screaming for more control," said Gonggrijp.

Dutch journalist Brenno de Winter warned that the European Parliament's support for data retention doesn't ensure security, and makes citizens vulnerable to automated traffic analysis of who communicates with whom through phone calls and internet connections. "What we have seen is a system that fails because we miss out on too much information, and even if we have all that information, it doesn't give us the right information and it is easy to circumvent," said de Winter.

CCC member and security researcher Frank Rieger said hackers should provide secure communications for political and social movements and encourage the widespread use of anonymity technologies. He said people on the other side of the camera need to be laughed at and shamed.

"It must not be cool anymore to have access to this data," said Rieger, who argued that Western societies are becoming democratically legitimized police states ruled by an unaccountable elite. "We have enough technical knowledge to turn this around; let's expose them in public, publish everything we know about them and let them know how it feels to be under surveillance."

The four-day Chaos Computer Congress is meeting near Alexanderplatz in the former East Berlin, where more than a half-million people rallied for political reform five days before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In his keynote address, Joichi Ito, general manager of international operations for Technorati, warned that the internet could itself become a walled-in network controlled by the International Telecommunication Union, Microsoft and telecommunications companies.

Ito said these restrictions would stifle free speech and the ability to question authority without retribution. "An open network is more important for democracy than the right to bear arms and the right to vote," said Ito. "Voice is more important than votes."

Posted by ann at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Chilling stories today about secret prisons of Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch says it has credible reports that eight people now being held at Guantanamo Bay were tortured at one prison. According to the NYT, BBC and other news outlets, terrorism suspects were subjected to appalling conditions. Prisoner accounts are remarkably consistent. Called "black sites" by the intelligence community, inmates were often kept in total darkness, bombarded with heavy metal and shackled to walls.

I'm heading to Europe. l have to explain to my friends there that my country is run by madmen.

Posted by ann at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

President Bush has finally acknowledged that he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct eavesdropping in the U.S. without obtaining warrants. He says he is going to continue this program because it is " a vital tool in our war against terrorists." He claims his actions are "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities" and bashed senators who blocked reauthorization of the Patriot Act when the story went public.

First Amendment attorney Glen Greenwald says pundits have been misquoting the FISA law to justify Bush's actions. But he notes that warrentless domestic spying is clearly not permited under federal statute.

In his live weekly radio address, Bush claims that the senate's actions "endangers the lives of our citizens." The president went on tv again tonight and insisted that "we are winning the war in Iraq."

It's more likely that the revelation about the domestic spying program will endanger what's left of the president' credibility and continue to damage those who kept quiet about it. My representative here in California, Nancy Pelosi, acknowledged today in the New York Times that she knew about the program and never raised a fuss. She'll pay for that back here where people are deeply troubled about warrentless surveillance.

It's still not clear why Bush felt he had to circumvent the law which allows him to seek emergency secret warrants from the FISA court. What was it about this surveillance that the court might have rejected? Why was the FISA judge so uncomforable about the information gathered in this surveillance possibly being used to secure further warrants for the FBI?

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says he will conduct hearings to find out if there was any statutory or legal basis for the surveillance, any judicial review, the scope of the intercepts, how callers were identified and what was done with this information. Sounds like a good start.

Posted by ann at 11:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The New York Times is defending its decision to squelch the story it finally published today on the National Security Agency's domestic spying program. The paper revealed that it had complied with a White House request not to pubish the story because it "would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

This is the same arguement that the government used to try to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers - and it is just as false today as it was back then. Does anyone really believe that al Qaeda operatives don't already assume that the government is attempting to wiretap their communications?

The Times story revealed that Bush secretly signed an order in 2002 authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans who were communicating with individuals overseas to determine whether they had ties to terrorists. The NSA is barred by law from domestic spying without a warrant appoved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Seems the Times editors actually believed government officials who told them that "a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." No legal questions? Why would the Times believe this? They're supposed to be journalists!

The Times has been bashing away at the Bush administration for their lack of honesty - and suddenly they're willing to believe that domestic surveillance without a warrant is legal? The Times sat on this story for a year and has redeemed itself only by releasing it just in time to help block renewal of provisions of the Patriot Act. Senators who were on the fence, like Sen. Charles Schumer, said this latest revelation about the abuse of executive power helped convince him to vote against renewal of the Act.

The Senate needed 60 votes to override fillibuster and end debate - and they never got the votes.

The reporters who landed the Times story are probably not happy about being muzzled and are not permited by their editors to speak out. But some reporter will get to them and perhaps answer some outstanding questions about this shameful episode.

According to a statement by the New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, "...in the course of subsequent reporting, we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

What does this mean? Does the NSA have a new technology for gathering surveillance that the Times is keeping quiet? And why would the NSA feel compelled to not seek warrants from the FISA court? The court seldom turns down a warrant request and is set up to allow intelligence gathering to proceed quickly. The FISA laws even permits the Attorney General or those he deputizes to conduct an emergency wiretap without a warrant as long as they go back and file for one within 72 hours of the surveillance.

No, there is some other reason why the NSA wanted to keep this surveillance secret from the FISA court. The reason must have been compelling enough for those who knew about this surveillance to leak the story to the press. Too bad the New York Times is complicit in allowing this illegal spying to continue.

Posted by ann at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Joe B., attended the rally for ID protester Deborah Davis in Denver last week. He notes that none of Davis' lawyers or members of the press were willing to risk arrest by refusing to show their IDs during Davis' media event bus ride through the Denver Federal Center.

Lawyers argue that if they had been arrested with Davis, they could have been considered witnesses and be forced to testify against her - or be banned from representing her in future legal actions. But Joe's right that lawyers and reporters should put their money where their mouth is and find out first hand how it feels to be arrested for simply refusing to show ID on a public bus.

Read Joe's account:

This was in the Rocky Mountain News on 12/10/05, regarding Deb's attempted "Victory Ride" through the DFC on Friday, 12/9:

------
Three lawyers followed in private cars, dubbed "rightsmobiles," ready to rush into the Federal Center - after showing their IDs - if Davis got arrested.

(Now there's a strong show of support. Not one lawyer was willing to join Davis on the bus and commit civil disobedience, but they're right behind Deb if she does!)

"I'm Jack McDonald," announced one officer. "Is there anyone on this bus right now who's willing to show ID?"

The journalists were willing. The five regular commuters were willing. Davis wasn't willing.

(Like the lawyers, the press isn't willing to put their money where their mouths are either!)

"If you're not going to show an ID, you're not going to be allowed on the Federal Center," Kinney (a rep from the RTD) announced.

RTD had a spare bus on hand to which it transferred the five regular commuters.

One of them was Tara Futch, who was on her way through the Federal Center to her job at Taco Bell. She said she rides the bus often and frequently forgets her ID, but always has been allowed to stay on through the Federal Center as long as she doesn't get off there.
----------

Tara had better have her ID from now on. Thanks to Deb, she can say goodbye to that lapse in protocol. The Feds will need to evenly enforce the rule if they expect it to withstand a legal challenge. Davis' actions will only lead to a tightening of the rule

So, to summarize: the number of supporters for Davis who have been willing to stand up against the ID rule in Denver so far: Lawyers - zero, press - zero, regular bus riders - zero, the dozen or so 'protesters' who showed up for the 'victory ride' - zero.

I wonder if the lawyers will re-christen their cars "wrongmobiles" if Davis loses (as I suspect she will) when she finally gets before a judge? For now, I think "chickenmobiles" is appropriate.

Posted by ann at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Identity activists held a rally on the steps of Federal Courthouse in Denver yesterday at the same time the federal government had planned to arraign Deborah Davis - the woman who refused to show her ID on a Denver public bus trensiting the Federal Center. The federal government had dropped charges in the case the day before. The reason they put forward for dropping the charges was that the ID requirement was inadequately posted. During the rally, Davis' attorney and lawyers from the ACLU also addressed the crowd.

After a brief speach by Davis at the courthouse, she boarded a private bus along with a group of reporters. They drove out to the Denver Federal Center and boarded same the Route 100 bus she had been arrested on last month.

When the bus pulled up to the security kiosk, federal agents were prepared this time. About five weapon toting federal police agents milled around outside the bus, searched underneath the bus, and placed a traffic cone behind the bus. Agents then drove up in a Ford Explorer with tinted windows, conferred with the officials from the Denver Regional Transit District and executed their plan.

The RTD had another public bus warmed up and ready. They asked the other passengers on the bus who was willing to show ID and they removed those people from the bus Deborah Davis and the reporters were on - and placed them on the waiting bus. They then drove Davis and the reporters around the permeter of the federal center.

Officials resolved the immediate situtuation, but did not address the controversy. Deborah Davis says she will continue to try to ride the Route 100 bus without showing ID. Will the city of Denver continue to try to provide Davis her own private bus at taxpayer expense? Those who rode the bus with Davis say they did not see any new signs announcing an ID requirment.

Federal agents are attempting to avoid confrontation and continue to enforce their ID rules for buses that pass through the Federal Center. You still have to show and ID to ride a public bus in Denver. Nothing has changed. Is there anyone else out there in Denver who cares enough about civil liberties to ride the Route 100 bus without showing ID?

Posted by ann at 07:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ordered the government to submit a secret order that officials say provides justification for the airport ID requirement.

The order, which will be delivered under seal, triggered a lawsuit by software entrepreneur John Gilmore who contends that the secret directive violates constitutional rights - especially the right to travel.

Lawyers in the case presented arguments yesterday to a three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court has posted an audio file of the proceedings and I have compiled a rough transcript of my own notes.

Justice Department attorney Joshua Waldman told the court that the government "couldn't confirm or deny" the existence of the ID rules because it is considered confidential under SSI (Secret Security Information) regulations. Appellate court judge Richard Waldman noted that this was "odd" and Waldman acknowledged to the skeptical judges that "there is a peculiar Orwellian feel" about ID requirements that passengers are pressured to follow but cannot read.

My brother Jim Harrison, who represents Gilmore in the case, asked the justices to block the government from imposing secret law and argued that the identification requirement violated 4th Amendment provisions. "Laws must be written down," Harrison told the judges. This is America. We do not have secret laws. Period."

Harrison argued that the ID requirement exceeded the limitations on airport searches laid down by the 9th Circuit decision in United States v. Davis. That ruling found that airport searches are a permitted exception to the Fourth Amendment as an administrative measure.

But according to the ruling, these searches must be limited to looking for weapons and explosives and must be applied to everyone. Harrison argued that these measures cannot legally be used to find people on secret lists. He noted that the Davis case specifically forbids law enforcement from using passenger manifests to search for particular individuals.

Appellate judge Richard Paez asked if the person couldn't simply leave the airport without showing ID, Harrison noted that the law protects people who are not suspects from punishment if they refuse to give a police officer their ID. But he noted that demanding ID from passengers - who are not suspects - punishes them by forbidding them from flying.

Appellate judge Stephan Trott sharply questioned Harrison several times about whether it was unconstitutional to ask for an ID in public. Harrison argued again that the airport ID requirement is considered an administrative search where the passenger is presumed not to be a suspect and no ID is required. He contrasted this with a Terry stopin which where suspects are permitted to be briefly detained and asked for their ID. But Trott appeared unsatisfied with the answer.

Trott also grilled Waldman as to why the government was playing "cat and mouse" with the courts by refusing to define the identification policy. The government had offered to show the policy to the appellate court but not the district court.

Waldman argued that the identity requirement did not place an undue burden on the right to travel and enhanced airport security. "The requirements promotes the right to travel by promoting everyone's safety," said Waldman.

But Waldman acknowledged "the incremental additional of the ID requirement" which the Davis case forbids insisting it was "no big deal."

Gilmore contends that the airport ID requirement which kept him from flying to Washington D.C. prevented him from exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance. Waldman countered that Gilmore could travel by other means. "You can assemble any way you want, it does not impact First Amendment rights at all," said Waldman who added, "I'm not aware of any right to travel anonymously."

Yesterday's hearing was covered by a number of media organizations including Wired News, CNET and the AP. Two of those stories published contained significant errors.

The CNET story mistakenly stated that the Supreme Court decided in 2004 "that they could arrest anyone they stopped who refused to show an ID." After the hearing, Gilmore noted outside the courtroom that in the case of Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District, the Supreme Court found that people not considered suspects, such as those simply boarding airplanes, do not have to answer questions or show an ID. "The Supreme Court said this is impermissible," said Gilmore.

The Supreme Court in this case also relied on a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court which ruled that under Nevada law, suspects have to give their name, but are not required to show an ID.

But the worst error by far was included in the AP story which falsely stated that Gilmore asked the appeals court to broaden the scope of his case to include other forms of transportation. In fact Gilmore's case has always included all forms of ID in its challenge to the government. The government tried to narrow the scope claiming that Gilmore had not tried to travel on trains or buses. Gilmore alerted the court yesterday that has since been barred from purchasing Amtrack tickets without ID.

I was with Gilmore when he attempted to fly from two airports on July 4, 2002 without showing ID. After some wrangling with airport officials, who could not produce the law requiring ID, he was told that he didn't actually need an ID if he was willing to undergo a more thorough search before boarding. Gilmore declined the search, sued the government and has not flown domestically since.

"What's shocking is that the judiciary is getting one story and the American people are getting another," said Harrison to the judges referring to the little known policy that exempts passengers from showing ID to fly if they are willing to undergo secondary screening.

A U.S. District Court dismissed Gilmore's case ruling that administrative orders that must be heard by an appeals court. Harrison asked the judges to remand the case back down to the district court because it had no record of the ID requirement - or a statement of facts for the appellate court to review.

Posted by ann at 04:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The government dropped all charges against Deborah Davis yesterday for failing to show her ID on a Denver public bus. Officials claim that passengers still have to show ID to transit through the Denver Federal Center, but said there were no clear signs to inform them of this requirement. Davis’ lawyers are not going away. Her arrest gives them standing to sue the federal government for false arrest. The lawyers are now negotiating with federal officials to prevent the ID requirement from being enforced on Denver city buses.

“We are very pleased that they dropped charges against Ms. Davis,” her volunteer attorney Gail Johnson told the Rocky Mountain News. "But sign or no sign, she and other Colorado citizens continue to have the constitutional right to travel by public bus without being forced to show identification to federal agents. I think if the government is going to insist on continuing to violate the constitutional rights of our citizens, then they are going to find themselves back in court on this one."

The scheduled rally in support of Davis will still be held on December 9 to protest demand for ID. A group of Davis’ supporters, reporters and lawyers will then take a “victory ride” through the Federal Center on Route 100. Some are planning not to show their IDs. Johnson told the Rocky Mountain News that lawyers are standing by in Denver to provide legal representation for anyone arrested.

Posted by ann at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Deborah Davis Becomes Our Generation’s Rosa Parks

Deborah Davis, a 50-year-old mother of four, was riding the bus to work one morning in Denver when she discovered what happens to citizens who insist on their fundamental right to travel.

A security guard boarded Davis’ public bus and demanded that all passengers show their ID. This was not the first time Davis had been asked to produce identification en route to work. The Route 100 bus transits through the Denver Federal Center that includes the offices of the Veterans Administration, U.S. Geological Survey and part of the National Archives.

The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area and Davis’ ID was not compared against a “no ride” list. But the incident bothered Davis because she knew from her high school civics class that there is no law requiring American citizens to carry an ID or produce it on demand.

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which oversees federal police, passenger ID checks on Route 100 began after the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. But forcing U.S. citizens to show an ID is a search without a warrant. It’s also an ineffective security tool. Faked and stolen IDs are commonplace and ID demands are manipulated by terrorists who select operatives that pass identity checks.

On this particular morning in late September, Davis decided that she was going to uphold her constitutional rights. When asked, she refused to show the guard her ID. When he ordered her off the bus, she refused explaining that she was simply trying to get to work.

The guard summoned a federal police officer who repeated the orders. Davis again refused and declined to hang up a phone call she had placed to a friend. “The whole thing seemed to be more about compliance than security,” Davis told the Denver Post.

What happened next is an example of what honest people like Davis endure in this country fifty years after Rosa Parks took her stand on a public bus. The police officer shouted, “Grab her!” and snatched the cell phone from her hand. He threw the phone to the back of the bus and with the other officer, jerked Davis to her feet. They dragged her out of the bus, handcuffed her, shoved her into the back seat of a police car, and drove her to a police station inside the federal center.

The policemen tried to figure out what to charge Davis with and finally ended up writing several tickets. They then removed her handcuffs, directed her to the bus stop and told her that if she ever entered the Denver Federal Center again, she would be arrested.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado immediately arranged to provide Davis with free legal representation. My brother, Jim Harrison, is one of several attorneys who will represent Davis when she is arraigned in U.S. District Court in Denver on December 9th. Davis, whose son is fighting in Iraq to allegedly defend American values, faces up to sixty days in jail.

Davis is expected to be charged with federal criminal misdemeanors involving admission to property and conformity to official signs and directions. The charges suggest that prosecutors will claim that people on the bus were on notice that they had to show ID. But Davis’ lawyers say no such demands were posted and Davis was not visiting the federal center, just passing through.

The day before Davis is arraigned, my brother will be arguing another right to travel case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of John Gilmore.

I was with Gilmore on July 4, 2002 when he attempted to fly out of San Francisco International Airport without showing an ID. When Gilmore asked to see the law demanding that he “show his papers” he was told that the law was secret.

Secret law is an abomination in a democracy. Gilmore has asked the courts to rein in this overreach of the executive branch. But a lower court has already ruled that Gilmore has no standing to challenge the ID requirement and rejected his assertion that the right to travel is supported by the 1st Amendment right to assemble and 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search.

The appellate court decision in Gilmore’s case will show whether the judiciary is willing to enforce laws that don’t exist and ignore the constitutional rights of brave people like Deborah Davis. Are there any more bus riders in Denver willing to commit civil disobedience by riding Route 100 without surrendering their IDs?

Ann Harrison ah@well.com is a San Francisco-based journalist.

Posted by ann at 11:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)