Importance of privacy policies in a fusion center
Information is the key goal for a Fusion Center. A Fusion Center collects and analyzes data from various sources to determine the likelihood of potential threats from domestic and foreign origin against the US. The information from government and private sources contribute largely to a Fusion Center’s database (Regan and Monahan, 2013). The most potent information often originates from the general population. The case of the Lackawanna Six is a testament to that. The people who provided the anonymous tip believed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation works to safeguard the nation. The FBI, with a long history of protecting the citizenry from the vilest criminal elements is a motivator for the caller. Similarly, the support from the public to thwart terrorist threats requires respecting their boundaries.
Although the ultimate goal of a Fusion Center is to identify threats against the citizens of the United States, the citizenry is entitled to a set of safeguards provided by laws and the US Constitution. In the United States, the adherence to Constitutional Amendments decides whether or not a citizen will face criminal prosecution. For example, the police cannot walk into a citizen’s residence and make an arrest on suspicion irrespective of the magnitude of the crime. There are clear structures that dictate the behavior of the Government and its agencies. These structures provide safeguards for the private lives of American citizens. A privacy policy that honors the US Constitution, the law, and civil liberties is essential for cooperation from the American public.
USA Patriot Act Review
The original USA Patriot Act contains several expiry-attached sections. In addition, the Act was a put together at record speed. The quick enactment of the Act became the primary basis for criticism towards it. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brands this Act as a violator of civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. While the original Act required tweaking, it was only explaining the use of surveillance machinery. The actual technology used was in existence with State and Federal law enforcement agencies long before 9/11. Subsequent reviews in 2005 and 2009 placed safeguards for protecting the privacy of citizens as well as legal aliens. Furthermore, the reviews tore down barriers that hinder the sharing of information between different agencies. The version of the USA Patriot Act in existence today serves to thwart threats from terrorists and criminals while protecting the civil liberties of American citizens.
US Constitutional Guarantees
The US Constitutional Amendments provide safeguards for civilians against excessive authority imposed by the government and its agencies. The First Amendment protects free speech, the Fourth Amendment safeguards against unauthorized searches, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving citizens of a fair trial along with all the possible avenues to prove their innocence. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial and the services of an attorney for those who cannot afford one, the Eighth Amendment restrains the officers of the Court from imposing an unfair punishment or excessive bail. Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment decrees that any individual tried on US soil will have all the Constitutional guarantees.
Effectiveness of Fusion Center privacy policies
The ALCU is in constant legal engagement with the Department of Homeland Security over civil liberties. Yet, the number of mobile phone sales is not declining. There is no drop in the number of internet users in the United States also. We experienced prolific whistleblowing experiences such as Edward Snowden. However, the American people are not changing over from AT&T. Google is still America’s favorite search engine and email service provider. If civil liberties are under threat, it is very doubtful that American citizens will remain silent or inactive. We are a nation that refuses to submit to anarchy. Whether it was the British King or the Ku Klux Klan, American citizens responded in unison and with adversity. The absence of adversity indicates the successful implementation of Fusion Center privacy policies.
The primary charge by the ALCU is that the US Government is wavering from the ideology of the Founding Fathers. They also raise objection to the secrecy of the trials involving foreign intelligence (The American Civil Liberties Union, 2008). The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution should be subject to interpretation through history for precise implementation. The safeguards and guarantees that the Founding Fathers implemented for the people of America founded on their experience serving of a tyrannical English King.
The new investigative approaches for countering terrorism might be different however, they still uphold the US Constitution. The Guantanamo detention center is a good example to that effect. The CIA was unable to overrule the US Constitution and had to operate the unconstitutional detention center outside US soil. When its existence was no longer a secret, it was shutdown promptly. On the secrecy front, it is difficult to make sensitive information available like other court records. The information procured from these trials transform into Navy Seal operations; similar to the Abbottabad raid on 2 May 2011. However, it is a regular practice to share the outcomes of the information analysis with the American people.
Basic structure of civilian privacy policy
The structure for the formation of the privacy policy in a Fusion Center begins with the intent of data collection. The data collected is subject to analysis and used to protect the lives of the general population while safeguarding the interests of the nation. The next step is to ascertain the duties of the data collection agencies; government agencies or private contractors. The duties will include the protection of privacy for civilians. The agencies and contractors will adhere to the policy regarding intrusive behavior. In addition, the policy will indicate the possibility of penalties for anyone who chooses to ignore the guidelines (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2013). The policy also includes the preservation of civil rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the policy serves as an extension of the intent of the US Government and a set of benchmarks used to evaluate the approach taken to procure the data. The privacy policy will apply to all personnel who handle intelligence. There are dispatch notes that denote the origin of the data. This checkpoint will ensure accountability. The Center will have its internal policies that echo the US Constitutional Amendments. All instances of possible policy violations are subject to investigation by a committee comprising senior administrators at the Fusion Center (US Department of Homeland Security, 2010).
Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act
This Section of the reviewed USA Patriot Act prohibits the viewing of any electronic information pertaining to any US citizen or permanent citizen without a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order. The only tracking that is possible is the information pertaining to the sender and the recipients. The court order is mandatory to view any part of the content including the subject line of an email message. The Fusion Center will evaluate all the procured data for adherence under Section 215 also (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010).
Enhancements to improve the existing system
The existing system has safeguards protecting the citizenry from unnecessary privacy intrusions. However, there are some loopholes that require filling. A good example is local law enforcement approach of racial profiling. The chances of an African-American searched on the street by police are significantly higher than for Caucasians. Similarly, American Arabs and Muslims are slowly emerging as a preferred source for FISA court orders. There has to be more than religion or culture to determine potential threats. This practice should be discouraged and violations must carry severe disciplinary punishment.
The Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting initiative aimed at gathering intelligence from the general population is ambitious and dangerous. Suspicious behavior need not necessarily mean terrorist activity. An unfaithful spouse might act suspiciously near the paramour’s residence. This does not make that person a terror suspect. Hence, there are chances that these reports might gain undue attention if the person is of Middle-Eastern origin. It will be a worthwhile initiative if the Fusion Centers provide information on any specific trends that are common for terror suspects (The Constitution Project, 2012).
References
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Staff (2013). Commonwealth Fusion Center Security Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/msp/homeland-security/terrorism/fusion-center/fusion-center-privacy-policy.pdf
Regan, P. M. and Monahan, T. (2013). Beyond Counterterrorism: Data Sharing, Privacy, and Organizational Histories of DHS Fusion Centers. International Journal of E-Politics. 4, 3. Pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.4018/jep.2013070101.
The American Civil Liberties Union Staff (2008). The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government
Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties. Retrieved from: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf
The Constitution Project Staff (2012). Recommendations for Fusion Centers. Retrieved from: http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/fusioncenterreport.pdf
US Department of Homeland Security Staff (2010). Fusion Center Privacy Policy Development. Retrieved from: http://it.ojp.gov/documents/d/Fusion_Center_Privacy_Policy_Development_508compliant.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice Staff (2010). Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Compliance Verification for the Intelligence Enterprise. Retrieved from: http://www.it.ojp.gov/documents/d/privacy%20civil%20rights%20and%20civil%20liberties%20compliance%20verification%20for%20the%20intelligence%20enterprise.pdf
