DOCSLIB.ORG

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED BLACKMAIL? Mass Surveillance and the Threat to Personal Privacy Ben Woodfinden

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GOVERNMENT SPONSORED BLACKMAIL? Mass Surveillance and the Threat to Personal Privacy Ben Woodfinden 1st Place Essay Contest Winner Undergraduate Category GOVERNMENT SPONSORED BLACKMAIL? Mass Surveillance and the Threat to Personal Privacy Ben Woodfinden CANADIAN STUDENT REVIEW WINTER 2016 13 dward Snowden is a No. 755 at 227-230 (1976)). Every polarizing figure. Yet even presidential administration since his detractors must concede Franklin Roosevelt’s has made use of Ethat the information he disclosed the state apparatus to spy on political about the surveillance operations opponents (Downs, 2013, June 14). In of the US National Security Agency the early 1970s, a series of scandals (NSA) and other security agencies involving American intelligence worldwide have led to an important agencies shook public trust in the US public discussion on surveillance and government. Between 1968 and 1975, civil liberties in the post-9/11 world. public trust in government dropped from 61% to 36% (Pew Research Centre, 2014). As a result, Congress Snowden’s disclosures have initiated the Church Committee raised a series of important in 1975 to investigate American intelligence gathering in the wake of legal, philosophical, and political these revelations (Senate Historical questions. Office, 1975). Snowden’s disclosures have The final Church Committee raised a series of important report, published in 1976, revealed legal, philosophical, and political widespread and systematic abuses questions. Do mass surveillance of power (Senate Select Committee, programs actually keep us safer? No. 755 at 16-17 (1976)). On multiple More fundamentally, can we trust occasions, the CIA, FBI, and NSA the government not to misuse the violated the fundamental rights of information it gains through mass peaceful American citizens. One surveillance? In the United States, specific example is worth highlighting. where many of these debates are The founder of the FBI, J. Edgar centered, there is a history of the Hoover, was notoriously unconcerned state misusing the surveillance with violating certain citizens’ powers it has granted to itself. constitutional rights in the name of Historical government surveillance protecting the country against (often in the United States has resulted in imaginary) enemies (Kessler, 2002: blackmail intended to silence dissent. 140). One such imagined enemy Disturbingly, this is also taking place was Martin Luther King. Despite today. overwhelming evidence that he was not a security threat, Hoover ordered extensive surveillance and wiretapping MASS SURVEILLANCE IN THE of King. The surveillance produced UNITED STATES BEFORE 9/11 nothing to suggest that King was a security threat, but it did produce The debate raging around mass evidence of sexual misconduct. This surveillance is not new. The American included a tape of King participating government has been using large- in an orgy in a Washington hotel. scale peacetime surveillance since at Although this information had no least 1919 (Senate Select Committee, relevance to any security operations, a 14 FRASERINSTITUTE.ORG governments use these programs to violate citizens’ basic rights and discredit political opponents then they become a danger to, and not a guardian of, the people they are supposed to protect. If governments use surveillance programs to violate citizens’ basic rights and discredit political opponents then they become a danger to, and not a guardian of, the people they are supposed to protect. MASS SURVEILLANCE IN THE POST-9/11 ERA In the aftermath of the Church J. Edgar Hoover, first Director of the Federal Bureau Committee, Congress established of Investigation. In office March 23, 1935 – May 2, 1972. the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Wikipedia photo Court (FISC), a special judicial body that had the power to consider letter was sent out to King that requests for secret warrants to spy included copies of the tape shortly on non-US persons acting as foreign before he received the Nobel Prize. agents within US borders. The court The intention was clear: to blackmail was supposed to end the frequent King and either damage his credibility abuses that the Church Committee or force him to resign his position uncovered by introducing a layer of (Kessler, 2002: 144). judicial accountability. On repeated occasions, surveillance Only weeks after the September 11 operations were not designed to attacks, Congress passed the Patriot simply monitor for suspicious activity. Act, which vastly increased the power Rather, they were intended to collect of American intelligence agencies. information that could be used to Oversight from both Congress and attack the reputation and character the FISC was supposed to ensure of the individuals in question (Senate the law was not misused. However, Select Committee, No. 755 at 221 many suspected that intelligence (1976)). The temptation to use mass agencies abused the law nevertheless surveillance programs to silence (Greenwald, 2013, September 27). and discredit political opponents is an obvious one, and it is one In June of 2013, The Guardian began with a well-documented history. If publishing leaked documents about CANADIAN STUDENT REVIEW WINTER 2016 15 secret NSA programs. The suspicions historical abuses by agencies such of several critics of surveillance were as the FBI? Documents disclosed by confirmed, including revelations that Snowden suggests that this is the governments have the capacity to case. One document that Snowden collect, store, and analyze almost released through The Guardian from all of our online and electronic October of 2012 suggests that the communications. Furthermore, NSA had been collecting evidence governments have indeed exercised of online sexual activity, such as these abilities. Programs like visits to pornographic websites, by PRISM, Boundless Informant, and six different targets (Ehrenfreund, XKeyscore allow the NSA to collect 2013, November 27). All six men enormous amounts of information were Muslims, and were believed about anyone it deems of interest by the NSA to have been involved directly from the Internet backbone in radicalization efforts. However, (Bauman, 2014: 122-126). Questions none of the six targeted individuals of constitutionality aside, these were accused in the document of programs completely overstep the being involved in terror plots. The intent and scope of the Patriot Act.1 document identifies at least one of them as being a “US Person,” a Does the NSA’s abuse of surveillance significant legal category that would power have any similarities to preclude surveillance overseen by 1 For more information on the scope and constitutionality of the Patriot Act, see Etzioni, 2004. 16 FRASERINSTITUTE.ORG the FISC. The intention of collecting is dulled. Individuals lose the full this information, according to the freedom to speak as they please, document, was to release evidence afraid of sanctions from a government of sexual transgressions online to that does not welcome certain views. discredit and destroy the reputations Thus, in the name of security, these of the individuals in question. programs harm the very freedom they are supposed to protect. As we have seen, this is not without precedent. The FBI under Hoover In his dissenting opinion in Olmstead is the most obvious example of v. U.S, Supreme Court Justice this. Not only has the NSA used Louis Brandeis offered a famous surveillance tools to discredit those formulation on the value of privacy. it deems dangerous, it has also used Brandeis wrote that: those tools to spy on the members The makers of our Constitution of Congress tasked with overseeing undertook to secure conditions NSA programs and funding (Pengelly, favorable to the pursuit of 2014, January 4). While it is unclear happiness. They recognized the how extensive this spying is, the significance of man’s spiritual potential for abuse is evident. Mass nature, of his feelings, and of his surveillance programs are known intellect. They knew that only a to have been used by the NSA to part of the pain, pleasure and blackmail individuals who were satisfactions of life are to be found not involved in planning any terror in material things. They sought to attacks against the United States. protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, The power that mass surveillance as against the Government, the gives to governments creates right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the a historically verifiable threat to right most valued by civilized men. individuals by creating the potential (Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)) for state-sponsored blackmail. From formulating heterodox opinions to character evolution, privacy is a vital component in the development CIVIL LIBERTIES AND MASS of our personal identities. Studies SURVEILLANCE have shown that human behaviour changes substantially when people The power that mass surveillance believe, correctly or incorrectly, that gives to governments creates a they are being watched (Ernest- historically verifiable threat to Jones, Nettle, and Bateson, 2011). individuals by creating the potential There is a reason that we do not for state-sponsored blackmail. But have toilets in the middle of living why is this so dangerous? Put simply, rooms: we naturally value privacy. when governments blackmail their There are things about ourselves, citizens, the potential for dissent from our bodily appearance to the CANADIAN STUDENT REVIEW WINTER 2016 17 websites we visit to our personal often violate our civil liberties and banking information, that we do not abuse the immense power
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense
    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance After Snowden
    Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) 2015, Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 12-25 Doi: 10.17645/mac.v3i3.277 Article “Veillant Panoptic Assemblage”: Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance after Snowden Vian Bakir School of Creative Studies and Media, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 9 April 2015 | In Revised Form: 16 July 2015 | Accepted: 4 August 2015 | Published: 20 October 2015 Abstract The Snowden leaks indicate the extent, nature, and means of contemporary mass digital surveillance of citizens by their intelligence agencies and the role of public oversight mechanisms in holding intelligence agencies to account. As such, they form a rich case study on the interactions of “veillance” (mutual watching) involving citizens, journalists, intelli- gence agencies and corporations. While Surveillance Studies, Intelligence Studies and Journalism Studies have little to say on surveillance of citizens’ data by intelligence agencies (and complicit surveillant corporations), they offer insights into the role of citizens and the press in holding power, and specifically the political-intelligence elite, to account. Atten- tion to such public oversight mechanisms facilitates critical interrogation of issues of surveillant power, resistance and intelligence accountability. It directs attention to the veillant panoptic assemblage (an arrangement of profoundly une- qual mutual watching, where citizens’ watching of self and others is, through corporate channels of data flow, fed back into state surveillance of citizens). Finally, it enables evaluation of post-Snowden steps taken towards achieving an equiveillant panoptic assemblage (where, alongside state and corporate surveillance of citizens, the intelligence-power elite, to ensure its accountability, faces robust scrutiny and action from wider civil society).
    [Show full text]
  • Frank Church, And/ Or United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, And/Or U.S
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 FOIA Case: 84652B 11 July 2017 JOHN GREENEWALD Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of 7 June 2016 for Intellipedia pages on the Church Committee, and/ or Frank Church, and/ or United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, and/or U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. A copy of your request is enclosed. In our initial response to you, dated 8 June 2016, we informed you that this request was assigned case number 84652 and that there are no assessable fees for this request. We provided you with two responsive documents on 12 August 2016 and informed you that we continued to work on your case. The final responsive documents are enclosed. This Agency is authorized by statute to protect certain information concerning its activities (in this case, internal URLs) as well as the names of its employees. Such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the third exemption of the FOIA, which provides for the withholding of information specifically protected from disclosure by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Through a PRISM, Darkly(PDF)
    NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Through a PRISM, Darkly Mark Rumold Staff Attorney, EFF NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Electronic Frontier Foundation NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 What we’ll cover today: • Background; what we know; what the problems are; and what we’re doing • Codenames. From Stellar Wind to the President’s Surveillance Program, PRISM to Boundless Informant • Spying Law. A healthy dose of acronyms and numbers. ECPA, FISA and FAA; 215 and 702. NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 the background NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 changes technologytimelaws …yet much has stayed the same NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The (Way) Background • Established in 1952 • Twin mission: – “Information Assurance” – “Signals Intelligence” • Secrecy: – “No Such Agency” & “Never Say Anything” NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The (Mid) Background • 1960s and 70s • Cold War and Vietnam • COINTELPRO and Watergate NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The Church Committee “[The NSA’s] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.” Senator Frank Church, 1975 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Reform • Permanent Congressional oversight committees (SSCI and HPSCI) • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – Established requirements for conducting domestic electronic surveillance of US persons – Still given free reign for international communications conducted outside U.S. NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Changing Technology • 1980s - 2000s: build-out of domestic surveillance infrastructure • NSA shifted surveillance focus from satellites to fiber optic cables • BUT: FISA gives greater protection for communications on the wire + surveillance conducted inside the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 12,333: Unleashing the CIA Violates the Leash Law Sherri J
    Cornell Law Review Volume 70 Article 6 Issue 5 June 1985 Executive Order 12,333: Unleashing the CIA Violates the Leash Law Sherri J. Conrad Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sherri J. Conrad, Executive Order 12,333: Unleashing the CIA Violates the Leash Law, 70 Cornell L. Rev. 968 (1985) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol70/iss5/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,333: "UNLEASHING" THE CIA VIOLATES THE LEASH LAW "Security is like liberty in that many are the crimes committed in its name." On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan promulgated Executive Order 12,333, establishing United States intelligence guidelines. 2 Restrictions on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were instituted in the 1970s in response to disclosures of wide- spread wrongdoing.3 The Order reflects the President's determina- tion to "unleash" 4 America's intelligence community5 from those limitations. The Order allows the CIA, America's chief foreign in- telligence gathering entity, to direct domestic counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, covert operations, and law enforcement activity against United States citizens. 6 The drafters of the Order ignored the statutory limits on intelligence gathering activity codified in the National Security Act. 7 The President's action thus constitutes a statutorily impermissible license for renewed government intrusion, and the Order should be revoked.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Legal Research Assistance That Can Make a Builds
    EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF BIOMETRIC MASS SURVEILLANCE PRACTICES IN GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, AND POLAND By Luca Montag, Rory Mcleod, Lara De Mets, Meghan Gauld, Fraser Rodger, and Mateusz Pełka EDRi - EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 2 INDEX About the Edinburgh 1.4.5 ‘Biometric-Ready’ International Justice Cameras 38 Initiative (EIJI) 5 1.4.5.1 The right to dignity 38 Introductory Note 6 1.4.5.2 Structural List of Abbreviations 9 Discrimination 39 1.4.5.3 Proportionality 40 Key Terms 10 2. Fingerprints on Personal Foreword from European Identity Cards 42 Digital Rights (EDRi) 12 2.1 Analysis 43 Introduction to Germany 2.1.1 Human rights country study from EDRi 15 concerns 43 Germany 17 2.1.2 Consent 44 1 Facial Recognition 19 2.1.3 Access Extension 44 1.1 Local Government 19 3. Online Age and Identity 1.1.1 Case Study – ‘Verification’ 46 Cologne 20 3.1 Analysis 47 1.2 Federal Government 22 4. COVID-19 Responses 49 1.3 Biometric Technology 4.1 Analysis 50 Providers in Germany 23 4.2 The Convenience 1.3.1 Hardware 23 of Control 51 1.3.2 Software 25 5. Conclusion 53 1.4 Legal Analysis 31 Introduction to the Netherlands 1.4.1 German Law 31 country study from EDRi 55 1.4.1.1 Scope 31 The Netherlands 57 1.4.1.2 Necessity 33 1. Deployments by Public 1.4.2 EU Law 34 Entities 60 1.4.3 European 1.1. Dutch police and law Convention on enforcement authorities 61 Human Rights 37 1.1.1 CATCH Facial 1.4.4 International Recognition Human Rights Law 37 Surveillance Technology 61 1.1.1.1 CATCH - Legal Analysis 64 EDRi - EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 3 1.1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’
    ‘The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’ ABSTRACT This article considers the feasibility of the adoption by the Council of Europe Member States of a multilateral binding treaty, called the Intelligence Codex (the Codex), aimed at regulating the working methods of state intelligence agencies. The Codex is the result of deep concerns about mass surveillance practices conducted by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The article explores the reasons for such a treaty. To that end, it identifies the discriminatory nature of the United States’ and the United Kingdom’s domestic legislation, pursuant to which foreign cyber surveillance programmes are operated, which reinforces the need to broaden the scope of extraterritorial application of the human rights treaties. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the US and UK foreign mass surveillance se practices interferes with the right to privacy of communications and cannot be justified under Article 17 ICCPR and Article 8 ECHR. As mass surveillance seems set to continue unabated, the article supports the calls from the Council of Europe to ban cyber espionage and mass untargeted cyber surveillance. The response to the proposal of a legally binding Intelligence Codexhard law solution to mass surveillance problem from the 47 Council of Europe governments has been so far muted, however a soft law option may be a viable way forward. Key Words: privacy, cyber surveillance, non-discrimination, Intelligence Codex, soft law. Introduction Peacetime espionage is by no means a new phenomenon in international relations.1 It has always been a prevalent method of gathering intelligence from afar, including through electronic means.2 However, foreign cyber surveillance on the scale revealed by Edward Snowden performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and their Five Eyes partners3 1 Geoffrey B.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Thematic factsheet1 Update: July 2018 MASS SURVEILLANCE The highly complex forms of terrorism require States to take effective measures to defend themselves, including mass monitoring of communications. Unlike “targeted” surveillance (covert collection of conversations, telecommunications and metadata by technical means – “bugging”), “strategic” surveillance (or mass surveillance) does not necessarily start with a suspicion against a particular person or persons. It has a proactive element, aimed at identifying a danger rather than investigating a known threat. Herein lay both the value it can have for security operations, and the risks it can pose for individual rights. Nevertheless, Member States do not have unlimited powers in this area. Mass surveillance of citizens is tolerable under the Convention only if it is strictly necessary for safeguarding democratic institutions. Taking into account considerable potential to infringe fundamental rights to privacy and to freedom of expression enshrined by the Convention, Member States must ensure that the development of surveillance methods resulting in mass data collection is accompanied by the simultaneous development of legal safeguards securing respect for citizens’ human rights. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it would be counter to governments’ efforts to keep terrorism at bay if the terrorist threat were substituted with a perceived threat of unfettered executive power intruding into citizens’ private lives. It is of the utmost importance that the domestic legislation authorizing far-reaching surveillance techniques and prerogatives provides for adequate and sufficient safeguards in order to minimize the risks for the freedom of expression and the right to privacy which the “indiscriminate capturing of vast amounts of communications” enables.
    [Show full text]
  • I,St=-Rn Endorsedb~ Chief, Policy, Information, Performance, and Exports
    NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE NSA/CSS POLICY 2-4 Issue Date: IO May 20 I 9 Revised: HANDLING OF REQUESTS FOR RELEASE OF U.S. IDENTITIES PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy, developed in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense, implements Intelligence Community Policy Guidance I 07 .1 , "Requests for Identities of U.S. Persons in Disseminated Intelligence Reports" (Reference a), and prescribes the policy, procedures, and responsibilities for responding to a requesting entity, other than NSA/CSS, for post-publication release and dissemination of masked US person idenlity information in disseminated serialized NSA/CSS reporting. This policy applies exclusively to requests from a requesting entity, other than NSA/CSS, for post-publication release and dissemination of nonpublic US person identity information that was masked in a disseminated serialized NSA/CSS report. This policy does not apply in circumstances where a U.S. person has consented to the dissemination of communications to, from, or about the U.S. person. This policy applies to all NSA/CSS personnel and to all U.S. Cryptologic System Government personnel performing an NSA/CSS mission. \ This policy does not affect any minimization procedures established pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (Reference b), Executive Order 12333 (Reference £), or other provisions of law. This policy does not affect the requirements established in Annex A, "Dissemination of Congressional Identity Information," of Intelligence Community Directive 112, "Congressional Notification" (Reference d). ~A General, U.S. Army Director, NSA/Chief, CSS i,st=-rn Endorsedb~ Chief, Policy, Information, Performance, and Exports NSA/CSS Policy 2-4 is approved for public release.
    [Show full text]
  • Nsa-Spybases-Expansi
    National Security Agency Military Construction, Defense-Wide FY 2008 Budget Estimates ($ in thousands) New/ Authorization Approp. Current Page State/Installation/Project Request Request Mission No. Georgia Augusta Regional Security Operation Center Inc. III - 100,000 C 202 Hawaii Kunia, Naval Security Group Activity Regional Security Operation Center Inc. III - 136,318 C 207 Maryland Fort Meade NSAW Utility Management System 7,901 7,901 C 213 OPS1 South Stair Tower 4,000 4,000 C 217 Total 11,901 248,219 201 1. COMPONENT 2. DATE NSA/CSS FY 2008 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM DEFENSE February 2007 3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION 4. COMMAND 5. AREA CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX FORT GORDON, GEORGIA NSA/CSS 0.84 6. PERSONNEL STRENGTH PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED TOTAL Army Installation OFF ENL CIV OFF ENL CIV OFF ENL CIV a. AS OF x b. END FY CLASS IFIED 7. INVENTORY DATA ($000) A. TOTAL ACREAGE B. INVENTORY TOTAL AS OF C. AUTHORIZED NOT YET IN INVENTORY 340,854 D. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM 0 E. AUTHORIZATION INCLUDED IN FOLLOWING PROGRAM 0 F. PLANNED IN NEXT THREE YEARS 0 G. REMAINING DEFICIENCY 0 H. GRAND TOTAL 340,854 8. PROJECTS REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM: CATEGORY PROJECT COST DESIGN PROJECT TITLE CODE NUMBER ($000) START COMPLETE 141 50080 Georgia Regional Security Operations Center 100,000 Jan 06 May 06 (FY08) (3rd Increment) (NSA/CSS Georgia) 9. FUTURE PROJECTS: a. INCLUDED IN FOLLOWING PROGRAM CATEGORY COST PROJECT TITLE CODE ($000) 141 Georgia Regional Security Operations Center (FY09) 86,550 (4th Increment) (NSA/CSS Georgia) b. PLANNED IN NEXT THREE YEARS CATEGORY COST PROJECT TITLE CODE ($000) 10.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Intent Mean?
    WHAT DOES INTENT MEAN? David Crump* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1060 II. PROTOTYPICAL EXAMPLES OF INTENT DEFINITIONS......... 1062 A. Intent as “Purpose” ..................................................... 1062 B. Intent as Knowledge, Awareness, or the Like ............ 1063 C. Imprecise Definitions, Including Those Not Requiring Either Purpose or Knowledge .................. 1066 D. Specific Intent: What Does It Mean?.......................... 1068 III. THE AMBIGUITY OF THE INTENT DEFINITIONS.................. 1071 A. Proof of Intent and Its Implications for Defining Intent: Circumstantial Evidence and the Jury ........... 1071 B. The Situations in Which Intent Is Placed in Controversy, and the Range of Rebuttals that May Oppose It................................................................... 1074 IV. WHICH DEFINITIONS OF INTENT SHOULD BE USED FOR WHAT KINDS OF MISCONDUCT?....................................... 1078 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 1081 * A.B. Harvard College; J.D. University of Texas School of Law. John B. Neibel Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center. 1059 1060 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38:1059 I. INTRODUCTION Imagine a case featuring a manufacturing shop boss who sent his employees into a toxic work environment. As happens at many job sites, hazardous chemicals unavoidably were nearby, and safety always was a matter of reducing their concentration. This attempted solution, however, may mean that dangerous levels of chemicals remain. But this time, the level of toxicity was far higher than usual. There is strong evidence that the shop boss knew about the danger, at least well enough to have realized that it probably had reached a deadly level, but the shop boss disputes this evidence. The employees all became ill, and one of them has died. The survivors sue in an attempt to recover damages for wrongful death.
    [Show full text]