55073 (Author at Cato Institute) https://www.cato.org/ en Patrick G. Eddington discusses protecting civil liberties while recording the police on CNET https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-protecting-civil-liberties-while Sun, 02 Aug 2020 11:57:13 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-protecting-civil-liberties-while Understanding Federal Police Surges in American Cities https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/understanding-federal-police-surges-american-cities Patrick G. Eddington, Walter Olson, Caleb O. Brown <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>What do we know about the federal police surges planned for several American cities? There are important distinctions among the agencies tasked with federal police action in American cities. Patrick Eddington and Walter Olson comment.</p> <p><strong>Related Materials:</strong><br> “<a href="https://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/putting-dhs-chopping-block" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Putting DHS on the Chopping Block</a>” featuring David Rittgers and Caleb O. Brown<br> “<a href="https://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/abolish-department-homeland-security" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Abolish the Department of Homeland Security</a>” featuring David Rittgers and Caleb O. Brown</p> </div> Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:43:52 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington, Walter Olson, Caleb O. Brown https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/understanding-federal-police-surges-american-cities House Democrats Drop DHS Funding From Omnibus Appropriations Bill https://www.cato.org/blog/house-democrats-drop-dhs-funding-omnibus-approps-bill Patrick G. Eddington <p>Late yesterday afternoon, the House Rules Committee published the rule for debate on the omnibus spending bill (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7617?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+7617%22%5D%7D&amp;s=1&amp;r=1">HR 7617</a>) to be considered this week. Significantly, and almost certainly in direct response to events in Portland and elsewhere, the <a href="https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/Rule_HR7617.pdf">rule</a> strikes Division E (the DHS funding section) from the bill.&nbsp;My Cato colleague (and fellow House staff veteran) Jeff Vanderslice noted that it was the Manager’s amendment offered by outgoing House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) that was the vehicle for the change.</p> <p>In my own review of the 340 amendments to the bill, I&nbsp;noticed that Amendment #106 to Division B (Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies), offered by Representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Alexandria Ocasio‐​Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Debra Haaland (D-NM) would ban the use of funds for the Department of Justice’s Operations <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-announces-launch-operation-legend">Legend</a> and <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-announces-launch-operation-relentless-pursuit">Relentless Pursuit</a>–two alleged crime‐​fighting initiatives that some believe are simply <a href="https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-mayor-police-union-differ-on-operation-legend/">political stunts</a> and potential cover for anti‐​protester operations.</p> <p>It’s unlikely House Democrats will elect to not pass any DHS appropriations bill this year, even though such a&nbsp;move is long overdue–as events in Portland and elsewhere have underscored. But putting further DHS money on ice can at least create leverage for potential major legislative changes…assuming the House Democratic leadership is actually serious about stopping constitutional rights violations by DHS personnel.</p> Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:23:40 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/blog/house-democrats-drop-dhs-funding-omnibus-approps-bill Patrick G. Eddington discusses 100 mile border zone the constitutionality and the current situation in Portland OR on BYU Radio’s Top of Mind with Julie Rose https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-100-mile-border-zone Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:21:47 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-100-mile-border-zone Patrick G. Eddington discusses the DHS experiment in Portland on The Bob Zadek Show https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-dhs-experiment-portland-bob-zadek Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:22:17 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-dhs-experiment-portland-bob-zadek Patrick Eddington discusses federal police in Portland, OR on Hearst TV https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-eddington-discusses-federal-police-portland-or-hearst-tv Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:24:01 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-eddington-discusses-federal-police-portland-or-hearst-tv The People of Portland: DHS’s Involuntary Human Test Subjects https://www.cato.org/blog/people-portland-dhss-involuntary-human-test-subjects Patrick G. Eddington <p>The people of Portland are now experiencing what many people of color–particularly Latinos living on the American side of the U.S.-Mexico border–have experienced for decades: out of control DHS agents violating their constitutional rights with apparent impunity.</p> <p>A few years back, I&nbsp;launched <a href="https://www.cato.org/checkpoint-america"><em>Checkpoint America: Monitoring The Constitution‐​Free Zone</em></a>, which examined Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoints located inside this country–checkpoints which are frequently used to detain, question and sometimes inflict violence on motorists who refuse to answer whether or not they are U.S. citizens. Since the Supreme Court misguidedly blessed the use of such checkpoints by CBP in the infamous 1976 <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/428/543.html"><em>U.S. v&nbsp;Martinez‐​Fuerte</em></a> decision, Congress has taken no action to put real limits on what CBP can and cannot do to people at those checkpoints, despite multiple General Accounting Office reports (<a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-824">2009</a> and <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-50">2017</a>) showing how useless they are, and how they have morphed into generalized crime control checkpoints–something expressly forbidden in the <em>Martinez‐​Fuerte</em> decision.</p> <p>The lack of oversight and restraints on CBP has created a&nbsp;culture of impunity. The same has been true of its counterpart DHS agency, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (<a href="https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/ice-records-confirm-that-immigration-enforcement-agencies-are-using-invasive-cell-phone-surveillance-devices/">ICE</a>) for decades. The bitter fruits of the lack of oversight and accountability for those DHS components is now on full display in Portland.</p> <p>The de facto kidnapping by DHS agents of <a href="https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/">Mark Pettibone</a>&nbsp;on July 15 should have resulted in the immediate suspension of the agents and a&nbsp;civil rights violation investigation by the Department of Justice. But it is the Department of Justice, in coordination with DHS, that is facilitating these kinds of rights violations.</p> <p>On May 31, the Justice Department <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/george-floyd-police-brutality-protests-government">authorized</a> the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to conduct covert surveillance and related activities against Black Lives Matter protestors in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. And following President Trump’s issuance of&nbsp;a “monument protection” <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-american-monuments-memorials-statues-combating-recent-criminal-violence/">executive order</a> on June 26, DHS on July 1&nbsp;circulated&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/society/border-patrol-portland-arrest/">press guidance</a> to its components about how to field inquiries from reporters about pending deployments of DHS law enforcement personnel assigned to its “Protecting American Communities Task Force (PACT)” for “potential surge activity to ensure the continuing protection of people and property.”</p> <p>This isn’t about protecting monuments. It’s about using the people of Portland as involuntary human test subjects for political repression operations carried out <em>under the guise</em> of protecting federal property–operations that DHS, with legal cover and possibly intelligence assistance from DoJ, intends to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/07/20/homeland-security-planning-to-deploy-150-agents-to-chicago-this-week/#65a5ea894146">export to other cities</a> beginning this week.</p> Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:03:37 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/blog/people-portland-dhss-involuntary-human-test-subjects Civil Liberties vs. Federal Cops in Portland https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/civil-liberties-vs-federal-cops-portland Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Federal police authority to “protect monuments” has instead delivered a&nbsp;substantial challenge to civil liberties. Patrick Eddington discusses the current federal police action in Portland, Oregon. </p> </div> , <div class="promo-block clearfix spacer--standout block--standout bg--standout block p-standard"> <h4 class="block__title heading">Related Content</h4> <div class="block--inner"> <h3 class="mb-md-4 heading"> <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-we-know-dont-know-about-portland-dhs">Civil Liberties vs. Federal Cops in Portland</a> </h3> <aside class="aside--large aside--right promo-block__image aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-we-know-dont-know-about-portland-dhs"><img width="444" height="296" alt="Military exiting vehicle with guns drawn" class="lozad component-image" loading="lazy" data-srcset="/sites/cato.org/files/styles/promo_block_2x/public/2020-07/202007_police_dhs.jpg?itok=eZeqH8Hb 1x, /sites/cato.org/files/styles/promo_block_2x/public/2020-07/202007_police_dhs.jpg?itok=eZeqH8Hb 1.5x, /sites/cato.org/files/styles/promo_block/public/2020-07/202007_police_dhs.jpg?itok=cNx01vvJ 2x" data-src="/sites/cato.org/files/styles/promo_block/public/2020-07/202007_police_dhs.jpg?itok=cNx01vvJ" typeof="Image" /></a> </aside> <ul><li>“<a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-we-know-dont-know-about-portland-dhs">What We Know, and Don’t Know, About Portland and the DHS</a>,” by Walter Olson</li> <li>“<a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-63-americans-favor-eliminating-qualified-immunity-police">Poll: 63% of Americans Favor Eliminating Qualified Immunity for Police</a>,” Survey Report by Emily Ekins</li> <li>“<a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/people-portland-dhss-involuntary-human-test-subjects">The People of Portland: DHS’s Involuntary Human Test Subjects</a>,” by Patrick G. Eddington</li> <li>“<a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/portland-paramilitarization-border-patrol">Portland and the Paramilitarization of the Border Patrol</a>,” by Paul Matzko</li> <li>“<a href="https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/civil-liberties-vs-federal-cops-portland">Civil Liberties vs. Federal Cops in Portland</a>,” Cato Daily Podcast featuring Patrick G. Eddington and Caleb O. Brown</li> </ul> </div> </div> Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:39:02 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/civil-liberties-vs-federal-cops-portland The War on Opioids: Digital Dystopia Edition https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/war-opioids-digital-dystopia-edition Jeffrey A. Singer, Patrick G. Eddington <div class="lead mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Undeterred by the harm created by its futile war on opioids, government may next turn to a&nbsp;new technology that uses artificial intelligence to monitor patients while they sleep, to make sure they use their pain killers the way the government wants. This would form a&nbsp;good basis for a&nbsp;dystopian science fiction novel —except it’s true.</p> </div> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Even while illicitly made fentanyl products sold on the black market comprise more than three quarters of opioid‐​related overdose deaths, state Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) keep doctors, pharmacists and patients under constant surveillance.</p> <p>Law enforcement raids doctors’ offices if they deviate from government‐​mandated caps on the opioids they prescribe. Pain patients are abandoned by terrorized doctors, and in desperation turn to street drugs and sometimes suicide. Now a&nbsp;vendor offers to take surveillance to the next level.</p> </div> , <aside class="aside--right aside--large aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <div class="pullquote pullquote--default"> <div class="pullquote__content h2"> <p>If all of this sounds somewhat terrifying, that’s because it is. </p> </div> </div> </aside> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>If you’ve not heard of “OPOS‐​Fullpower,” it’s not surprising.</p> <p>The announcement of “The first 24/7 opioid compliance solution” was on Jan. 2, and attracted little notice. The two companies involved —Calaifornia‐​based Fullpower Technologies and OPOS —are trying to combine the power of the former’s “hybrid Edge/​Cloud AI, algorithms, big data, predictive analytics” with the latter’s opioid patient monitoring expertise to create a&nbsp;round‐​the‐​clock digital opioid patient tracking system.</p> <p>If all of this sounds somewhat terrifying, that’s because it is.</p> <p>The companies are proposing that Americans undergoing chronic opioid therapy for pain management 1) download their app onto their smartphones, 2) allow the companies to “track vitals, function and behavior” via “contactless biosensors” and 3) store and share that data with the treating medical provider.” In other words, the companies want to incentivize participating doctors to convince their patients to give up their health data so the doctors and Fullpower‐​OPOS can profit. This is the Facebook user digital information‐​for‐​profit model applied to the health care sector. And there’s one other third party that stands to benefit: local, state, and federal law enforcement.</p> <p>It’s worth remembering that the first electronic mass surveillance program started during the “War on Drugs” was the DEA’s telephone metadata program.</p> <p>Now, two companies are creating a&nbsp;system that would synthesize and store the most intimate medical and physiological data on millions of Americans suffering from chronic pain in a&nbsp;form that would be readily available to police under HIPAA’s extremely broad law enforcement access legal carve out. And with respect to other patient privacy protections —specifically data security —the Fullpower OPOS proposal is a&nbsp;non‐​starter.</p> <p>The companies claim that “Fullpower and OPOS meet and exceed security protections required by HIPAA and HITECH. The companies are committed to continuously assessing data security controls through risk assessment and maintain a&nbsp;risk management program to address any vulnerabilities that are identified.” This is product marketing boilerplate, not a&nbsp;credible guide to the specific technologies employed to protect sensitive information.</p> <p>For example, Fullpower‐​OPOS make no mention of the employment of encryption for their smartphone app —a requirement to avoid compromising a&nbsp;person’s private health information. Nor have the companies disclosed the kind of encryption, cyber intrusion or “insider threat” countermeasures and practices that their IT backbone and cloud systems will employ.</p> <p>Finally, how secure from hacking or interception are the “contactless biosensors” and related IT system? Fullpower‐​OPOS offer no answers.</p> <p>The reality is that the Fullpower‐​OPOS system is based on a&nbsp;flawed premise, the most important of which is how we got to where we are in this current chapter of the “War on Drugs.”</p> <p>In the late 1990s, as prescribers and patients overcame fears of opioids, prescription volume increased, making them a&nbsp;popular item for diversion into the black market for non‐​medical users. Government interventions have forced prescription rates to drop precipitously since 2010. The black market responded with heroin and then fentanyl. Diverted prescription opioids by themselves are less than 10 percent of opioid‐​related overdose deaths.</p> <p>The war on opioids began through the propagation of powerful anecdotes that suggested doctors created non‐​medical drug users by hooking them on pain killers. But government’s own data show no correlation between the volume of opioid prescriptions and non‐​medical use or addiction. The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that addiction “only occurs in a&nbsp;small percentage of persons who are exposed to opioids —even among those with pre‐​existing vulnerabilities.”</p> <p>The fact is, overdoses from non‐​medical drug use have been rising steadily since at least the late 1970s, with different drugs at the forefront. In the ‘70s and ‘80s it was heroin and cocaine. In the ‘90s and ‘00s, painkillers.</p> <p>Now, 15&nbsp;years after Congress thought it solved the “meth crisis,” deaths from it and other stimulants are at record highs. We are now making the same mistake with opioids. Approaches like the one from Fullpower‐​OPOS would worsen the situation. Providers and patients should just say no to this one.</p> </div> Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:58:30 -0400 Jeffrey A. Singer, Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/war-opioids-digital-dystopia-edition Pandemic Contact Tracing As A New Police Power https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/pandemic-contact-tracing-new-police-power Patrick G. Eddington, Matthew Feeney, Caleb O. Brown <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Will contact tracing for COVID-19 inevitably become a&nbsp;new police power to be used to track or generate criminal suspects? Patrick Eddington and Matthew Feeney comment. </p> </div> Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington, Matthew Feeney, Caleb O. Brown https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/pandemic-contact-tracing-new-police-power Race, Violence, and Political Illegitimacy https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/race-violence-political-illegitimacy Patrick G. Eddington <div class="lead mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Perhaps it’s appropriate that with July 4th, the anniversary of America’s violent break from Britain, less than a&nbsp;month away, the issue of state‐​sponsored violence and reactions by citizens to it is, once again, front and center in our national conversation. The catalyst, this time, is last month’s murder of George Floyd by a&nbsp;Minneapolis police officer.</p> </div> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>These events should force those of us who are white and have benefited from that fact all our lives to ask ourselves a&nbsp;simple question: when the existing political structure has clearly been an instrument of repression and violence against an entire class of citizens for decades, and when decades of largely nonviolent efforts to change that system have yielded, at best, indifference and, at worst, even greater political repression and violence, when are those citizens justified in taking direct action—including the use of force—to change that system? And are we on the cusp of such a&nbsp;crisis now?</p> </div> , <aside class="aside--right aside--large aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <div class="pullquote pullquote--default"> <div class="pullquote__content h2"> <p>America’s white‐​dominated political institutions are facing their greatest crisis of legitimacy in decades, and systemic racism — particularly in domestic police surveillance and violence targeting communities of color — is the reason why. </p> </div> </div> </aside> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>In colonial America in the 1770s, as now, state‐​sponsored political repression and violence against citizens was a&nbsp;driving force behind political unrest. The Boston Massacre in March 1770, in which several American colonists in an angry crowd were killed in a&nbsp;clash with British soldiers, is one of the most well‐​known and documented examples, but there were others leading up to the now‐​legendary encounters between American rebels and British Redcoats at Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, in April 1775.</p> <p>In his superb 2007 book,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Violent-Politics-Insurgency-Terrorism-Revolution/dp/0061236195/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LKZY2SVWXOD4&amp;keywords=violent+politics&amp;qid=1591292323&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=violent+poli%2Caps%2C320&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank"><em>Violent Politics</em></a>, former State Department official William Polk noted:</p> </div> , <blockquote class="blockquote"> <div> <p>Collections of colonists gathered themselves into a&nbsp;number of small groups with such colorful names as the Liberty Boys, Mohawk River Indians, Sons of Neptune, and Philadelphia Patriotic Society. Not to mince words, they were terrorist organizations. Working outside the law and at cross purposes with the existing authorities, they tarred and feathered would‐​be sellers of tax stamps, assaulted customs inspectors, dumped tea into the sea, ran blockades, coerced juries, or prevented courts from sitting. Under their attacks, administrations in the colonies ceased to function. Destruction of the existing administration…is a&nbsp;stage through which successful insurgencies have to pass. (p. 6)</p> </div> </blockquote> <cite> </cite> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>For over a&nbsp;decade prior to “the shot heard round the world,” John Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and the rest of the Founding Fathers pleaded, cajoled, and ultimately demanded that the Crown cease its taxation without representation and the use of military force against American colonists. The response from Britain was to send still more troops to America and begin denying colonists even local representation.</p> <p>By the spring of 1775, the colonial American leaders listed above had had enough. They resorted to revolutionary violence to free themselves from King George III’s army and political control. Racially, these colonists were white, and for nearly two‐​and‐​a‐​half centuries the white majority in this country has celebrated these “terrorists”—including Boston’s Sam Adams and his Sons of Liberty—as heroes and patriots for ultimately defeating what had become a&nbsp;British military and political occupation force.</p> <p>These same leaders of the new American nation did not extend the rights they had demanded and obtained to all the inhabitants of the liberated colonies. Women were not allowed in the political arena, and the Constitution ultimately adopted after the revolution only meant freedom for white men. The coercive power of the government—at the local, state, and federal level—remained firmly in white male hands even at the end of the Civil War.</p> <p>In the more than 150&nbsp;years since then—despite the emancipation of women, despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and despite the election of America’s first black president—the overarching structure of state coercive power largely being wielded by white men has remained, with few exceptions, unchanged. And it is the longstanding and ongoing targeting of black Americans by that still white‐​dominated power structure—particularly law enforcement organizations —that has brought the country to a&nbsp;place where people of color increasingly see American governmental institutions as corrupt, unaccountably violent, and thus illegitimate.</p> <p>When entire classes of people have been brutalized by the state for long enough, the situation becomes ripe for violent responses. This is exactly what happened during the latter stages of the Vietnam War and into the early 1970s. The question now is whether the political establishment’s response to the current crisis will be sufficient to avert a&nbsp;repeat of that era, or something even worse.</p> <p>To date, there have been a&nbsp;relatively limited number of violent incidents by protestors, despite the radical level of state‐​sponsored&nbsp;<a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/george-floyd-police-brutality-protests-government" target="_blank">surveillance</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapolis-police-use-of-force.html" target="_blank">violence</a>, and murder perpetrated against communities of color in this country. Most of these citizens have—until now—still tried to achieve change through the political process and the courts.</p> <p>In some states, such as New Jersey, certain municipalities appear to have learned lessons from past episodes of police violence against black communities, as&nbsp;<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/peaceful-protests-george-floyd-prevail-jersey-history-racial/story?id=71024450" target="_blank"><em>ABC News</em></a>&nbsp;has reported, and have thus far avoided the kinds of scenes witnessed in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.</p> <p>As the ABC News piece notes, police and civic leaders in Newark remain mindful of the 1967 riots in their city, precipitated by two white police officers stopping and severely beating an African American cab driver. As Camden County Police Chief Joseph Wysocki told the network he reminds his officers every day that the department’s use‐​of‐​force policy “mandates de‐​escalation. Marching with the protesters is a&nbsp;form of de‐​escalation,” he said. Wysocki’s approach makes police part of the solution, not the core of the problem.</p> <p>But other signs are alarming.</p> <p>Last week, former U.S. Army officer and Iraq War veteran Senator Tom Cotton (R‐​Ark.) wrote an op‐​ed in the&nbsp;<em>New York Times</em>&nbsp;titled simply, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html" target="_blank">Send in the Troops</a>.” In the midst of nationwide protests against the on‐​camera murder of a&nbsp;black man by a&nbsp;white Minneapolis police officer, a&nbsp;white, southern former military officer representing an ex‐​Confederate state calls for the use of massive military force in response to acts of vandalism and arson that are nowhere near the scale seen during the volatile summers of 1967 and 1968 at the height of Vietnam War protests, or in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.</p> <p>Cotton’s rhetoric and proposed response is the kind of political authoritarianism that further delegitimizes the federal government in the eyes of those protesting in the streets, making it easier for anti‐​government extremists—who I&nbsp;have no doubt are exploiting the situation—to say to the peaceful demonstrators feeling rage and despair, “You see, we told you so.”</p> <p>The policies advocated by Cotton and Attorney General Bill Barr (who radically expanded Drug Enforcement Agency&nbsp;<a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/george-floyd-police-brutality-protests-government" target="_blank">surveillance powers</a>&nbsp;to target protestors and ordered the clearing of peaceful demonstrators in front of the White House for President Donald Trump’s notorious photo op in front of St. John’s Church) will make further violence and death more likely, not less.</p> <p>A clear nonviolent way forward has been&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/civilrightsorg/status/1268576605552721927" target="_blank">articulated</a>&nbsp;by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), a&nbsp;coalition of civil rights groups. Its call for specific police reforms includes the longstanding&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/qualified-immunity-takes-center-stage-more-delay-scotus" target="_blank">appeal</a>&nbsp;by colleagues at my organization, the Cato Institute, for an end to “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/" target="_blank">qualified immunity</a>” for law enforcement personnel.</p> <p>As University of Chicago Law School Professor William Baude noted in his landmark&nbsp;<a href="https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;in 2018, “The doctrine of qualified immunity operates as an unwritten defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for violations of their constitutional rights unless a&nbsp;government official violated “clearly established law,” which usually requires specific precedent on point.” In other words, if a&nbsp;victim of police violence cannot find a&nbsp;prior case where the fact pattern is identical to the current claim, their lawsuits inevitably run aground on qualified immunity.</p> <p>The doctrine is truly Kafkaesque, and there is hope that the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/870165744/supreme-court-weighs-qualified-immunity-for-police-accused-of-misconduct" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;will, this term, either limit or perhaps even reject the doctrine entirely.</p> <p>Eliminating qualified immunity would help address after‐​the‐​fact violations of rights. But the vast majority of Americans—and above all, those demonstrating around the country—also want to prevent rights violations in the first place.</p> <p>To that end, other steps recommended by the LCCHR, and endorsed by DRAD include national use‐​of‐​force standards, a&nbsp;police‐​misconduct database, prohibitions on profiling, as well as a&nbsp;general demilitarization of police forces across the country. To that list I&nbsp;would add a&nbsp;ban on the use of mass digital‐​surveillance technologies like&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/cell-site-simulatorsimsi-catchers" target="_blank">cell site simulators</a>&nbsp;(police‐​operated cell tower impersonators that pinpoint cell device locations) and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/09/07/new-book-reveals-just-how-sophisticated-surveillance-has-become_partner/" target="_blank">wide area motion imagery</a>&nbsp;(airborne, real time video surveillance of entire cities) by law enforcement at any level.</p> <p>Implemented as a&nbsp;package, these reforms would help prevent — but can never entirely preclude — police violence against law abiding citizens. Only by electing leaders committed to a&nbsp;relentless policy of protecting the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans can we ever hope to avoid repeats of the kind of state‐​sponsored murder of men like George Floyd.</p> <p>Passing laws is never enough. The enactment of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act over 50&nbsp;years ago only happened because of intense political pressure by King and tens of thousands of other civil rights activists. But as with everything in politics, it’s the follow‐​through that matters.</p> <p>Even if qualified immunity is eliminated and all the other reforms called for by LCCHR are made real, the greatest challenge will come afterwards: ensuring that the reforms actually get results. For that to happen, white politicians will need to acknowledge the legitimacy of the demands of people of color for fundamental changes in American policing and domestic surveillance practices and work with their colleagues of color to implement those changes, along with conducting daily, rigorous oversight of their public‐​safety departments.</p> <p>If the existing political establishment fails yet again to address these grievances in a&nbsp;deep, substantive way, then those who have marched peacefully may conclude that further talk is pointless, and that emulating the example of past American revolutionaries is their only course of action.</p> <p>America has come perilously close to this kind of crisis before, during World War II with the race riots in Detroit and other cities, and across the country in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s. The refusal of first Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon to extricate the United States from Vietnam and end police brutality against African Americans led to the rise of the Weather Underground and the militarization of the Black Panthers. Those more violent offshoots of political protest only faded after some, but not all, of the underlying grievances that led some to a&nbsp;more militant path had been addressed.</p> <p>The United States exited Vietnam and ended the draft, which addressed the major grievances of white anti‐​war protestors. But the failure to forcefully confront the ongoing systemic racism in American society, and especially in police departments large and small across the country, was never really addressed. It was not addressed in the wake of the Rodney King episode nearly 30&nbsp;years ago. It was not addressed after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It was not addressed after the NYPD murder of Eric Garner.</p> <p>Each of these cases was treated as a&nbsp;one‐​off, just “a few bad apples” in a&nbsp;police department that otherwise was sound. More Americans today finally understand that those “bad apples” were evidence of a&nbsp;rotten core in entirely too many police departments from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York and beyond.</p> <p>Whether the murder of George Floyd will finally mark a&nbsp;turning point, one in which systemic police brutality against and targeting of communities of color is finally ended, very much remains to be seen.</p> <p>Political legitimacy is an inherently fragile thing. Its loss inevitably leads to violence and even revolution. America’s white‐​dominated political institutions are facing their greatest crisis of legitimacy in decades, and systemic racism — particularly in domestic police surveillance and violence targeting communities of color — is the reason why. Our society ignores the obvious solutions at its peril.</p> </div> Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:20:18 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/race-violence-political-illegitimacy FISA ‘Reform’: Groundhog Day Edition https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fisa-reform-groundhog-day-edition Patrick G. Eddington <div class="lead mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>For over six months, Congress, national security bureaucrats and civil liberties groups have engaged in the surveillance law equivalent of the 1993 Bill Murray movie “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/" target="_blank">Groundhog Day</a>.” It is a&nbsp;process that has happened repeatedly since the first PATRIOT Act reauthorization battle in 2005.</p> </div> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>The script is always the same. In Act I, fresh abuses of surveillance authorities by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies are revealed in the press. Act II involves civil society organizations ritualistically denouncing the abuses and calling for changes in the law that are sold as a&nbsp;means to prevent future abuse. Act III involves a&nbsp;tiny handful of congressional surveillance opponents vainly trying to prevent the respective leaderships of their parties from passing a “reform” bill that actually makes future abuses a&nbsp;virtual certainty. Act IV is the denouement, where the anti‐​reform “reform” bill passes both chambers and is signed into law, with at least one “sunset” (i.e., expiration) provision tacked on to ensure the “Groundhog Day”-like political theater will be repeated a&nbsp;few years later.</p> <p>In the movie, it was a&nbsp;change in the attitude of Bill Murray’s character that finally ended the time loop. In December 2005, it was the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html" target="_blank">New York Times’ revelation</a>&nbsp;of President George W. Bush’s unconstitutional STELLAR WIND warrantless electronic surveillance program that started such a&nbsp;cycle. But after a&nbsp;more than two‐​year, very public battle in the press and Congress over the scandal, Congress elected to make the illegal STELLAR WIND (or at least portions of it) legal via the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22FISA+Amendments+Act%22%5D%7D&amp;s=3&amp;r=3" target="_blank">FISA Amendments Act</a>&nbsp;in 2008—since reauthorized twice.</p> </div> , <aside class="aside--right aside--large aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <div class="pullquote pullquote--default"> <div class="pullquote__content h2"> <p>Genuine legislative efforts to reverse NSA surveillance overreach were all sabotaged by House and Senate leadership, on a&nbsp;bipartisan basis. </p> </div> </div> </aside> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Seven years ago, it was thought that the revelations of yet more massive, warrantless surveillance of Americans&rsquo; <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order" target="_blank">telephone traffic</a> by NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden would augur in real reforms&mdash;particularly after it was revealed that the PATRIOT Act telephone metadata program in question had never stopped a single terrorist attack on the United States.</p> <p>Indeed, in his new book &ldquo;<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/316047/dark-mirror-by-barton-gellman/" target="_blank">Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State</a>,&rdquo; journalist Bart Gellman posits that &ldquo;The Snowden effect shifted popular culture. It brought about legal, diplomatic, political and legislative challenges to the prevailing model at the NSA.&rdquo; (p. 351)</p> <p>In reality, genuine legislative efforts to reverse NSA surveillance overreach&mdash;even one that passed the House with <a href="https://longstrangejourney.com/2014/12/04/nsa-reform-when-293-votes-is-not-a-majority/" target="_blank">293 votes</a>&mdash;were all sabotaged by House and Senate leadership, on a bipartisan basis. Instead, Congress in 2015 passed the USA Freedom Act, which we now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-2017-annual-report.html" target="_blank">know did not at all end</a> the failed NSA telephone metadata program. That legislation also had a &ldquo;sunset&rdquo; provision, which brings us to the current iteration of our failed surveillance reform time loop.</p> <p>It began last fall, when the Trump administration <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/surveillance-reform-charades-begin">announced it would seek to extend</a> three PATRIOT Act authorities set to expire in December 2019, including authority for the failed NSA telephone metadata program despite its alleged <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/nsa-phone-records-program-shut-down.html" target="_blank">termination</a> earlier in 2019. Civil liberties groups again called for an end to the program and the legal authority to ever restart it.</p> <p>At the end of 2019, Congress temporarily extended the authorities in question through March 2020, at which time reformers seemed to get at least part of what they wanted&mdash;the statutory <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/those-must-have-expiring-fisa-authorities-they-expired-sort" target="_blank">death</a> of the telephone metadata program. But it was a pyrrhic victory, as then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr</a>(R-NC) <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4860932/user-clip-sen-burr-claims-eo-12333-permits-mass-surveillance-without-congresss-permission" target="_blank">disclosed on the Senate floor</a> that NSA could conduct exactly the same types of surveillance under <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html" target="_blank">EO 12333</a>. Reformers did ultimately get a deal for a vote on three additional amendments to the legislation after yet another temporary extension of the expiring authorities, which lapsed earlier this month.</p> <p>But once again, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell</a> (R-Ky.) outmaneuvered reformers by putting a 60-vote threshold on the proposed amendments, causing the most important one&mdash;offered by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.)&mdash;to <a href="https://time.com/5836481/senate-rejects-internet-surveillance-limits/" target="_blank">come up just one vote short</a>. Had it passed, the <a href="https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-opposes-warrantless-government-surveillance-of-americans-internet-browsing-history-" target="_blank">Wyden-Daines amendment</a> would’ve imposed a warrant requirement for law enforcement to obtain the internet web browsing and internet search histories of an American citizen.</p> <p>However, since the bill has to go back to the House for final action, reformers are <a href="https://www.aclu.org/coalition-letter-house-leadership-concerning-wyden-daines-amendment-usa-freedom-reauthorization-act" target="_blank">pushing to get a House version of Wyden-Daines amendment</a> voted on this week. It appears that reformers have <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/fisa-amendment-house-leaders-274968" target="_blank">secured a vote</a> on an amendment by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that allegedly largely mirrors the Wyden-Daines proposal. Even if Lofgren and her allies prevail on the House floor, the bill would once again have to go back to the Senate. The question now is whether the 15-year surveillance reform Groundhog Day cycle will finally be broken.</p> </div> Wed, 27 May 2020 08:58:20 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fisa-reform-groundhog-day-edition Obama’s “Rule of Law” Hypocrisy https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-rule-law-hypocrisy Patrick G. Eddington <div class="lead mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Did former President Obama himself “leak” the audio of his <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/496954-obama-blasts-dojs-decision-to-drop-flynn-case-rule-of-law-is-at-risk">conversation</a> with some of his former administration officials, in which he falsely claimed that former National Security Advisory Mike Flynn was charged with perjury (it was false statements to the FBI) while describing the Barr Justice Department’s dismissal of the Flynn case as putting “the rule of law at risk”? Or did a&nbsp;former Obama aide take liberties (and possibly violate the law) by recording and leaking the conversation? We’ll probably never know the answer to that one, but what we do know for certain is this: Barack Obama is the last person on earth who should try to lecture anyone about “the rule of law.”</p> </div> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>It was then‐​Sen. Obama who in 2005 <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/08/us/politics/08obama-surveillance-history-video.html">lambasted the PATRIOT Act</a> as a&nbsp;mortal threat to constitutional liberties, and who two years later during his presidential run said he would <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/08/us/politics/08obama-surveillance-history-video.html">end warrantless wiretapping of Americans</a>. Instead, Obama went on to <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/08/us/politics/08obama-surveillance-history-video.html">urge renewal of the controversial and ineffective surveillance</a> that Edward Snowden subsequently exposed during Obama’s second term in office, and then sought Snowden’s prosecution for exposing the very warrantless surveillance Obama had previously pledged to end.</p> <p>In response to the 2008 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report about the CIA’s rendition and torture program, the newly elected President Obama admitted that “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YBinnWqABQ">we tortured some folks</a>” but then told Americans to “<a href="https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2010/11/18/obamas-torture-problem/">look forwards, not backwards</a>”—not firing a&nbsp;single CIA employee involved in the torture program, including the Agency’s now‐​current director, <a href="https://thehill.com/people/gina-haspel">Gina Haspel</a>.</p> <p>Obama arguably violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act by ordering military action against <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html">Libya in 2011</a>, despite no attack by Libya on U.S. interests or personnel anywhere in the world prior to Obama’s green‐​lighting a&nbsp;military campaign without congressional consultation, much less authorization.</p> <p>Obama’s constitutional overreach on immigration resulted in a&nbsp;deadlocked Supreme Court effectively <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html">vitiating</a> his executive order, further setting back efforts to bring actual reform to America’s broken immigration system.</p> <p>America’s 44th president set all too many precedents for executive power grabs and miscarriages of justice, as so many of his predecessors did before him. Obama’s lack of self‐​awareness regarding his own role, and that of prior chief executives, in setting the stage for Trump is what makes his hypocrisy in this episode all the more amazing. And the idea that his running mate and vice president for eight years is behaving any differently now—consider the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden.html">Tara Reade</a> episode—would be laughable were the stakes this November not so incredibly high.</p> </div> , <aside class="aside--right aside--large aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <div class="pullquote pullquote--default"> <div class="pullquote__content h2"> <p>The reality is that Obama, and many of his predecessors over the last 100&nbsp;years, took deliberate actions that hastened the decline of the rule of law we now confront at the federal level in 21st century America.</p> </div> </div> </aside> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>That Washington’s Political Class is self‐​serving, corrupt, and not terribly concerned with the daily struggles of most Americans is something many of those voters long ago recognized. The “hope” Obama promised was a&nbsp;chimera, and “Make American Great Again” was the cynical fantasy Trump sold a&nbsp;desperate, and gullible, white working class in his first campaign. As the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, protecting Americans from a&nbsp;genuine threat to their health and safety is the furthest thing from Donald Trump’s mind; his focus, as ever, is on only himself. But it is the gall of Obama’s “rule of law” riff that underscores his political fraudulence—it is the flip side of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R‐​Ky.) rigged impeachment “trial” of Trump earlier this year.</p> <p>Obama’s failure to actually hold his own predecessor, and key federal bureaucrats at the CIA, NSA, and FBI, responsible for their “War on Terror” misdeeds at home and abroad makes it easier to understand why the FBI has been able, for so long, to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf">abuse</a> the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court process to improperly spy on Americans. The reality is that Obama, and many of his predecessors over the last 100&nbsp;years, took deliberate actions that hastened the decline of the rule of law we now confront at the federal level in 21st century America. Our path out of this legal and ethical morass must begin with the understanding that ending out‐​of‐​control presidential power is the most important, long‐​term task facing Congress and the nation.</p> </div> Tue, 12 May 2020 03:00:00 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-rule-law-hypocrisy Congress and COVID-19: Is Remote Legislating and Oversight Possible? https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/congress-covid-19-remote-legislating-oversight-possible Daniel Schuman, Liz Hempowicz, Corinna Turbes, Patrick G. Eddington <p>The COVID-19 pandemic has altered our society in the most profound ways, particularly in terms of the kind of direct, personal contact most of us have taken for granted. This change has been profoundly felt in how Americans interact with their government and how the government itself functions—or doesn’t—during this unprecedented crisis. After passing the multi‐​trillion‐​dollar COVID-19 relief package, House and Senate members left town, and legislative activity, including oversight hearings, ceased. Congress watchers have called on the House and Senate to resume most operations remotely, but can they? What are the practical, technological, and political obstacles to congressional remote operations? How can effective oversight be conducted from a&nbsp;distance?</p> <p>Join us as an expert panel examines these and other issues impacting the U.S. government’s “first branch.”</p> Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:35:56 -0400 Daniel Schuman, Liz Hempowicz, Corinna Turbes, Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/congress-covid-19-remote-legislating-oversight-possible Patrick G. Eddington participates in the Town Hall event, “Our Civil Liberties in the Age of Covid‐​19: A National Townhall,” hosted by Defending Rights & Dissent, in collaboration with The Nation https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-g-eddington-participates-town-hall-event-our-civil-liberties Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:35:26 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-g-eddington-participates-town-hall-event-our-civil-liberties Target: Telegram https://www.cato.org/blog/target-telegram Patrick G. Eddington <p>Monday night, <em>Communications Daily</em> (<a href="https://communicationsdaily.com/">paywall</a>) ran a story with the following lede:</p> <p> </p><div data-embed-button="image" data-entity-embed-display="view_mode:media.blog_post" data-entity-type="media" data-entity-uuid="d92c581f-881e-4f2a-806e-a9d80f14f35f" data-langcode="en" class="embedded-entity"> <img srcset="/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-04/Communications%20Daily%20April%207%2C%202020%20Telegram%20story%20screenshot.png?itok=izbaNq43 1x, /sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2020-04/Communications%20Daily%20April%207%2C%202020%20Telegram%20story%20screenshot.png?itok=OvzUU8h9 1.5x" width="700" height="146" src="/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-04/Communications%20Daily%20April%207%2C%202020%20Telegram%20story%20screenshot.png?itok=izbaNq43" alt="Communications Daily April 7 2020 Telegram story screenshot" typeof="Image" class="component-image" /></div> <p>As Karl Herchenroeder noted deeper in the piece, the fact of the existence of an FBI investigation involving the <a href="https://telegram.org/">Telegram app</a> surfaced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request I filed last year with the FBI. In October 2019, the FBI responded to my FOIA with the following:</p> <p> </p><div data-embed-button="image" data-entity-embed-display="view_mode:media.blog_post" data-entity-type="media" data-entity-uuid="ed22e7d3-22e5-4d2a-9014-ff399bbe9457" data-langcode="en" class="embedded-entity"> <img srcset="/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-04/FBI%20Telegram%20FOIA%20response%20screenshot%20Oct.%2010%202019.png?itok=AKl8URzc 1x, /sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2020-04/FBI%20Telegram%20FOIA%20response%20screenshot%20Oct.%2010%202019.png?itok=1E0idMod 1.5x" width="700" height="141" src="/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-04/FBI%20Telegram%20FOIA%20response%20screenshot%20Oct.%2010%202019.png?itok=AKl8URzc" alt="FBI Telegram FOIA response screenshot Oct. 10 2019" typeof="Image" class="component-image" /></div> <p>I appealed, but last month the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) <a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-04/OIP%20records%20denial%20affirmation%20Telegram%20030920.pdf">affirmed</a> the FBI’s refusal to provide a single document mentioning Telegram. While I’m evaluating whether to sue DoJ over the denial, the fact that the Department has acknowledged that it has at least one (and likely far more) investigation of Telegram’s service underway is itself significant.</p> <p>That former (<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS9LS449boAhU3knIEHXs1CRYQFjAAegQIAhAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpowerpost%2Fpaloma%2Fthe-technology-202%2F2019%2F04%2F17%2Fthe-technology-202-james-comey-is-offering-a-mea-culpa-on-encryption-but-his-views-haven-t-really-changed%2F5cb6585c1ad2e5345893fe13%2F&amp;usg=AOvVaw3OUr6fshYdAKCemWVv4hgT"><span>Comey</span></a>) and current (<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi5-Ljy4dboAhXCgnIEHZ92DXIQFjADegQIBBAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.techdirt.com%2Farticles%2F20200310%2F13474344075%2Ffbi-director-chris-wray-pitches-weakened-encryption-cyber-security-conference.shtml&amp;usg=AOvVaw1NGZRkDmDhYukyzwZPKV5r">Wray</a>) FBI directors have been waging public relations battles against public key encryption is well established. Comey of course actually <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714005/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf">went to court</a> against Apple over the issue as it related to the San Bernardino Salafist terrorist incident. But what no senior federal official has been willing to admit is this: compromising the encryption utilized by tens of millions of Americans–including the family members of FBI, DEA, and other law enforcement officers at all levels–would make all of us more vulnerable to not just ordinary hacking, but potentially to kidnapping or even murder.</p> <p>Comey, Wray and other security and surveillance hawks–most who have zero experience as computer programmers or cryptographers–continue to engage in magical thinking–convinced that somehow tech companies can develop encryption “backdoors” that only the government could access. As the data breaches at the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjb3afG5dboAhW0l3IEHW-pD3YQFjAHegQIChAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2F2013%2F8%2F16%2F4628284%2Fdepartment-of-energy-hackers-steal-personal-data-from-14000-employees&amp;usg=AOvVaw0k3hOAxx2bW52pQ9cmFj-8">Department of Energy</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=2ahUKEwizisnj5dboAhUylnIEHVrMDygQFjAAegQIAhAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.csoonline.com%2Farticle%2F3318238%2Fthe-opm-hack-explained-bad-security-practices-meet-chinas-captain-america.html&amp;usg=AOvVaw30aBiyz1dGddht7ZtKJVSS">OPM</a> (among others) have demonstrated, there’s no such thing as a safe crypto or IT security “back door”–if they exist, hostile actors will find and exploit them. The fact remains that the FBI has many tools to get at bad actors that misuse encrypted messaging apps like Telegram. Legislatively or court‐​mandated crypto “back doors” that place us all at risk should not be one of them.</p> Tue, 07 Apr 2020 13:33:35 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/blog/target-telegram FISA Abuses Update: DoJ IG Management Advisory Memorandum Edition https://www.cato.org/blog/fisa-abuses-update-doj-ig-management-advisory-memorandum-edition Patrick G. Eddington <p>Lots of very important stories are going to get passed by, very understandably, due to the ongoing COVID-19 national emergency we’re all trying to survive. Here’s one story that I&nbsp;hope does not get permanently subsumed by our public health crisis: the total debacle that is the FBI Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance application process.</p> <p>Today, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a&nbsp;<a href="https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf">Management Advisory Memorandum</a> (MAM) about its follow up audit work in the wake of its Crossfire Hurricane (i.e., Carter Page FISA surveillance scandal) <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf">report</a> from December 2019. Even though the DoJ IG is still relatively early in its follow up audit of FBI FISA application practices with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for applications to spy on U.S. Person, the DoJ IG’s preliminary findings were so alarming that they felt compelled to issue MAM now.</p> <p>Regarding the FBI’s existing factual accuracy review procedures (known internally as “Woods procedures”), the IG stated (pp. 2–3):</p> <blockquote><p>(1) we could not review original Woods Files for 4&nbsp;of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has notbeen able to locate them and, in 3&nbsp;of these instances, did not know if they ever existed;</p> <p>(2) our testing of FISA applications to the associated Woods Files identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed, and interviews to date with available agents or supervisors in field offices generally have confirmed the issues we identified;</p> <p>(3) existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms have also identified deficiencies in documentary support and application accuracy that are similar to those that we have observed to date; and</p> <p>(4) FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy, to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process, or increased accountability measures.</p> </blockquote> <p>Bottom line: none of the relatively small sample of FISA applications reviewed were likely worth the paper they were written on. And based on this relatively random sample, I’ll be very surprised if the IG doesn’t find exactly the same state of affairs for FISA applications at every one of the 56 FBI field offices in the country.</p> <p>All of which leaves us with a&nbsp;very simple, and damning, question: Exactly how many Americans were wrongly targeted for FISA surveillance–and possibly prosecution–on the basis of bogus FISA applications? Hopefully, the final IG report, which likely won’t be out for many months, will tell us. The questions then will become whether&nbsp;Congress will actually do anything about it&nbsp;and will anybody at the Justice Department and FBI get sacked over this. If history is any guide, the answers are likely to be “no” absent a&nbsp;fundamental change in attitude by House and Senate members towards the Bureau and DoJ.</p> </p> Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:18:11 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/blog/fisa-abuses-update-doj-ig-management-advisory-memorandum-edition Patrick G. Eddington with Caleb O. Brown on civil liberties in an emergency https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/patrick-g-eddington-caleb-o-brown-civil-liberties-emergency Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:58:55 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/patrick-g-eddington-caleb-o-brown-civil-liberties-emergency Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties During a Pandemic https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/emergency-powers-civil-liberties-during-pandemic Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown <p>Vigilance toward overweening government is no less important during a&nbsp;pandemic. Cato’s Patrick Eddington discusses some federal efforts to claim emergency powers.</p> Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:21:25 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/emergency-powers-civil-liberties-during-pandemic COVID-19, Bill Barr and the American Authoritarian Tradition https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/covid-19-bill-barr-american-authoritarian-tradition Patrick G. Eddington <div class="lead mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>National crises—real or manufactured—often bring out the worst in government officials. It was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/doj-coronavirus-emergency-powers-140023" target="_blank">reported</a>&nbsp;on Saturday that the Justice Department requested from Congress the ability to ask chief judges to indefinitely detain people without trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> </div> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>This penchant of federal officials to attempt or actually suspend the Bill of Rights dates from the first decade of the American republic to the present day. Now, Attorney General Bill Barr is seeking to revive the use of at least some of those past tools of political repression in the name of combatting a&nbsp;microscopic, and all‐​to‐​frequently lethal virus.</p> <p>It was the authoritarian Federalists who pushed the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=29&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj2zMKHva7oAhWLlXIEHa0NAIoQFjAcegQICBAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fguides.loc.gov%2Falien-and-sedition-acts&amp;usg=AOvVaw04IPK8uZFKTPpW7jiRBBiD" target="_blank">Alien and Sedition Acts</a>&nbsp;through the Congress in 1798. President Lincoln&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=17&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjtksCiva7oAhWhmHIEHXBWCAMQFjAQegQIBRAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fconstitutioncenter.org%2Fblog%2Flincoln-and-taneys-great-writ-showdown&amp;usg=AOvVaw1dmCZLX17UAIrz0XPoGP4W" target="_blank">suspended habeas corpus</a>&nbsp;at the outbreak of the Civil War. President Wilson and a&nbsp;pliant Congress gave the country the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=15&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjgg_y-va7oAhUZl3IEHf0BCcMQFjAOegQIAxAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fprologue.blogs.archives.gov%2F2017%2F06%2F15%2Fdefining-a-spy-the-espionage-act%2F&amp;usg=AOvVaw2iojsgOjl7f7SwjtorZZsA" target="_blank">Espionage Act</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=27&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjU_J6Rvq7oAhUCgnIEHTs_CYA4FBAWMAZ6BAgJEAE&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fhistory.state.gov%2Fhistoricaldocuments%2Ffrus1917Supp02v02%2Fd101&amp;usg=AOvVaw3ZlVOEN0RLNsRQoumQnBgS" target="_blank">Trading with the Enemy Act</a>, a&nbsp;revived&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=19&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwif3_Crvq7oAhXMlnIEHc76D0cQFjASegQIAxAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fuwpress.wisc.edu%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D3209&amp;usg=AOvVaw3B6LhBLIUN_tP3cqYvUGTh" target="_blank">Sedition Act</a>&nbsp;and the Food and Fuel Control Act (which allowed federal agents to enter people’s homes to see if they were “hoarding” flour, sugar or other daily staples). President Franklin Delano Roosevelt&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=11&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjZn8yNwa7oAhXQknIEHbzdCA0QFjAKegQIARAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ourdocuments.gov%2Fdoc.php%3Fdoc%3D74&amp;usg=AOvVaw1KoefvwLTLUHCYAFMIeGg5" target="_blank">ordered the internment</a>&nbsp;of over 100,000 innocent Japanese Americans after the Pearl Harbor attacks—a scurrilous unconstitutional act upheld by the Supreme Court at the time and only&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiX74Xks67oAhXig3IEHdk0CBUQFjAAegQIBBAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F17pdf%2F17-965_h315.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw01a6I-lFpeGq4sfOsvqoPP" target="_blank">repudiated by the current Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;less than two years ago. During the Cold War, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=13&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiD-pijwa7oAhWblHIEHTXJB9MQFjAMegQICBAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fhistory.house.gov%2FHistorical-Highlights%2F1901-1950%2FThe-permanent-standing-House-Committee-on-Un-American-Activities%2F&amp;usg=AOvVaw2JRAS2kO19RuVQttz90jAb" target="_blank">House Committee on Un‐​American Activities</a>&nbsp;and its Senate counterpart, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=5&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwip2efDwa7oAhWslnIEHUFECY4QFjAEegQICRAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives.gov%2Flegislative%2Fguide%2Fsenate%2Fchapter-13-judiciary-1947-1968.html&amp;usg=AOvVaw0yX-BNnxLyFO9EFAg2Huvq" target="_blank">Internal Security Subcommittee</a>, spent decades and taxpayer dollars in public anti‐​communist witch hunts that destroyed the reputations and lives of thousands of Americans.</p> </div> , <aside class="aside--right aside--large aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <div class="pullquote pullquote--default"> <div class="pullquote__content h2"> <p>This penchant of federal officials to attempt or actually suspend the Bill of Rights dates from the first decade of the American republic to the present day.</p> </div> </div> </aside> , <div class="mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default"> <p>Exactly how would suspending court proceedings prevent the spread of the virus? Given where we are in this pandemic, eliminating in‐​person court proceedings might be prudent from a&nbsp;public health standpoint, but much of the American justice system can operate utilizing existing telecommunications technology.</p> <p>My ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/47632/hayden-nsa-road-911/" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>&nbsp;against the Defense Department and the National Security Agency is a&nbsp;case in point. Since the beginning of March, the magistrate judge presiding in our mediation proceedings has held two judicial teleconferences with the parties. From a&nbsp;procedural and technological standpoint, those conferences have gone off without a&nbsp;hitch. Given the availability of video teleconferencing capabilities, there’s simply no justification for suspending criminal proceedings either, as Barr is pushing.</p> <p>Barr’s power play for essentially open‐​ended suspensions of criminal proceedings and related matters has nothing to do with stopping the spread of COVID-19. Barr’s proposals, at least so far as we know from public reporting thus far, involve giving judges the power to suspend court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.” The only reason to suspend court proceedings would be if no judges, court recorders, or other court personnel were available to deal with cases. That’s not the case now and is highly unlikely ever to be the case. Our legal system can absolutely continue to operate in the digital age, as my own experience and that of many others demonstrates.</p> <p>The condemnation of Barr’s proposals has been swift and bipartisan. Sen.&nbsp;Chuck Schumer&nbsp;(D-N.Y.), representing one of the states hardest hit by COVID-19, had a&nbsp;terse response to Barr’s gambit: “<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1241548274810699776" target="_blank">Hell no</a>.” Rep.&nbsp;Justin Amash&nbsp;(I‐​Mich.)&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1241417517630971905" target="_blank">tweeted</a>&nbsp;“Congress must loudly reply NO.” Sen.&nbsp;Rand Paul&nbsp;(R‐​Ky.) went further in his&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1241523042699878402" target="_blank">tweet</a>:</p> <p>“We absolutely must, must, resist government run amok taking advantage of a&nbsp;crisis. This is how your liberty dies. Stand up America and resist.”</p> <p>Resist indeed.</p> </div> Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:17:04 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/covid-19-bill-barr-american-authoritarian-tradition Foes of Suspicionless Surveillance Score a Small Win https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/foes-suspicionless-surveillance-score-small-win Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown <p>Amendments will finally be offered to the broad federal surveillance powers granted by Congress. Patrick Eddington discusses what that means for liberty and privacy.</p> Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:18:41 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington, Caleb O. Brown https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/foes-suspicionless-surveillance-score-small-win Those “Must Have” Expiring FISA Authorities? They Expired (Sort Of) https://www.cato.org/blog/those-must-have-expiring-fisa-authorities-they-expired-sort Patrick G. Eddington <p>With COVID-19 coverage dominating the news cycle, it’s easy to forget that it was only on Monday of this week that the Senate–after a&nbsp;rancorous debate (<a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/487910-senate-clears-77-day-extension-of-surveillance-powers">in private and public</a>) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3501/actions?q={%22search%22:[%22Foreign+Intelligence+Surveillance+Act%22]}&amp;r=2&amp;s=4&amp;KWICView=false">passed</a> a&nbsp;77‐​day extension of three Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities. One of those authorities–the so‐​called “lone wolf” provision–has never even been used, and another–the PATRIOT Act Section 215 “business records” authority–had its infamous and <a href="https://www.pclob.gov/reports/UFA-Report/">ineffectual</a> telephone metadata provision formally killed by NSA last year.</p> <p>As for the “roving wiretap” feature expiration, existing emergency warrantless authorities under FISA (seven days worth of time to get a&nbsp;warrant) will allow the feds to keep tabs on actual bad actors without missing a&nbsp;beat. Or, as Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4860932/user-clip-sen-burr-claims-eo-12333-permits-mass-surveillance-without-congresss-permission">disclosed</a> during the debate, NSA can just use the old, reliable (and completely statutorily unregulated) <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html">Executive Order 12333</a> to conduct the very same surveillance.</p> <p>As of today (March 20) the FISA extension was, according to the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3501?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Foreign+Intelligence+Surveillance+Act%22%5D%7D&amp;r=2&amp;s=4">Con​gress​.gov</a> website, still being “held at the desk” (legislative lingo for “nothing further has happened since the House got the bill from the Senate”) with no House floor action on anything scheduled until March 23.</p> <p>Burr’s startling admission on the Senate floor quite naturally begs the question: If NSA can conduct the same kind of spying under an executive order, why the hair‐​on‐​fire rhetoric about the need to renew these expiring FISA authorities?</p> <p>If only we had dedicated Congressional committees whose job it is to investigate such things.…</p> Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:52:12 -0400 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/blog/those-must-have-expiring-fisa-authorities-they-expired-sort Coronavirus and FISA Reauthorization Make for A Toxic Legislative Mix https://www.cato.org/blog/coronoavirus-fisareauthorization-toxic-legislative-mix Patrick G. Eddington <p><em>National Review</em> <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/congress-set-to-agree-to-coronavirus-funding-will-avoid-fisa-pitfall/" target="_blank">reported</a> earlier this week that a&nbsp;coronavirus spending package allegedly moving through Congress would not, in fact, contain language reauthorizing a&nbsp;handful of soon‐​to‐​expire PATRIOT Act provisions that are part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We’ll likely know by today whether that’s true, at least as far as the House bill is concerned.<br><br> And while roughly 40 House GOP members made <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/house-republicans-claim-democrat-leadership-plans-to-package-fisa-reauthorization-with-coronavirus-funding-to-avoid-real-reform/" target="_blank">noise</a> about urging House Speaker Pelosi to keep the two major public policy issues separate, we’ve thus far not seen the same kind of pressure applied to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by his GOP colleagues.</p> <p>Even so, FISA reauthorization seems to be facing a&nbsp;surprisingly uphill battle, for now. Less than a&nbsp;week ago, McConnell’s Kentucky Senate colleague, Senator Rand Paul, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/27/rand-paul-trump-surveillance-law-117940" target="_blank">let it be known</a> that President Trump would not sign a&nbsp;clean reauthorization of the expiring FISA provisions (which includes the never‐​used “lone wolf” provision, as well as the roving wiretap authority) in the wake of the FBI FISA scandal involving the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj72aX17v7nAhVcmHIEHXvpAcYQFjAAegQIBhAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fstorage%2F120919-examination.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw3qbRmPm_xgtaYTDtkECTs2" target="_blank">Crossfire Hurricane investigation</a>.</p> <p>Still, it’s no guarantee that surveillance authorities that should die will, in fact, do so. In a&nbsp;recent <a href="https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/effort-reform-warrantless-surveillance" target="_blank">podcast</a> with the Cato Institute, perennial FISA reformer Senator Ron Wyden laid out the usual (and often successful) strategy of pro‐​FISA surveillance hawks, which simply stated is this: wait until the day before the authorities are about to expire, whip up a “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3319464729?playlistId=tt0285331&amp;ref_=vp_rv_ap_0" target="_blank">24</a>” style fear mongering campaign that says “Renew this or people will DIE!” and then call a&nbsp;vote on a&nbsp;bill that cannot be amended.<br><br> Given that prior examinations of other mass surveillance programs — illegal ones (like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/value-of-nsa-warrantless-spying-is-doubted-in-declassified-reports.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=1&amp;referrer=" target="_blank">STELLAR WIND</a>) and legal ones (the PATRIOT Act Sec. 215 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/nsa-phone-program.html" target="_blank">telephone metadata program</a>) — have shown how constitutionally violative, ineffective, and wasteful they are, it boggles the mind that surveillance hawks want to continue programs that have either never been used or never stopped an attack on this country.</p> <p>The question that will be answered before the Ides of March (the date the Patriot Act provisions in question are set to expire) is whether we’ll witness yet another act of legislative cowardice that keeps the American surveillance state alive. Whether it comes attached to legislation ostensibly designed to counter the spread of the coronavirus or through some other form of Congressional trickery, Americans and reform‐​minded policymakers should be vigilant against any attempt to extend FISA’s lease on life.</p> Wed, 04 Mar 2020 13:55:51 -0500 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/blog/coronoavirus-fisareauthorization-toxic-legislative-mix Patrick G. Eddington discusses domestic surveillance spying on free speech groups on the CounterSpeak podcast https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-domestic-surveillance-spying-free Wed, 04 Mar 2020 11:06:20 -0500 Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-g-eddington-discusses-domestic-surveillance-spying-free In Hoffa’s Shadow: A Stepfather, a Disappearance in Detroit, and My Search for the Truth https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/hoffas-shadow-stepfather-disappearance-detroit-search-truth Jack Goldsmith, Gene Healy, Patrick G. Eddington <p>How would you react if your stepfather, a&nbsp;man you revered, was accused of the greatest unsolved murder of the 20th century? How would it alter your relationship with him, the rest of your family, and your friends and colleagues? How would your own subsequent exposure to the federal government’s investigative and surveillance powers reshape your view of the government, your stepfather, and yourself? Former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith experienced all these things and more, sharing them with the world via his third book, <em><a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374175658" target="_blank">In Hoffa’s Shadow: A&nbsp;Stepfather, a&nbsp;Disappearance in Detroit, and My Search for the Truth</a></em>.</p> Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:02:53 -0500 Jack Goldsmith, Gene Healy, Patrick G. Eddington https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/hoffas-shadow-stepfather-disappearance-detroit-search-truth