D.E.A. Secretly Collected Bulk Records of Money-Counter Purchases

[blueskyline]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/politics/dea-money-counter-records.html......

D.E.A. Secretly Collected Bulk Records of Money-Counter Purchases....

D.E.A. Secretly Collected Bulk Records of Money-Counter Purchases

 

 

Image

The Drug Enforcement Administration said the program had led to arrests and seizures of drugs, guns, cars and illicit cash.CreditCreditMark Lennihan/Associated Press

By Charlie Savage

• March 30, 2019
• •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

WASHINGTON — The Drug Enforcement Administration secretly collected data in bulk about Americans’ purchases of money-counting machines — and took steps to hide the effort from defendants and courts — before quietly shuttering the program in 2013 amid the uproar over the disclosures by the National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, an inspector general report found.

Seeking leads about who might be a drug trafficker, the D.E.A. started in 2008 to issue blanket administrative subpoenas to vendors to learn who was buying money counters. The subpoenas involved no court oversight and were not pegged to any particular investigation. The agency collected tens of thousands of records showing the names and addresses of people who bought the devices.

The public version of the report, which portrayed the program as legally questionable, blacked out the device whose purchase the D.E.A. had tracked. But in a slip-up, the report contained one uncensored reference in a section about how D.E.A. policy called for withholding from official case files the fact that agents first learned the names of suspects from its database of its money-counter purchases.

That instruction, it said, “was intended to protect the program’s sources and methods; criminals would obtain money counters by other means if they knew that the D.E.A. collected this data.”

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP

 

 

A preamble said the D.E.A. and the inspector general worked together on redactions, and press officers for both declined to comment on the inadvertent disclosure. The D.E.A., which is an arm of the Justice Department, provided a statement responding to the inspector general’s findings, pledging fealty to the rule of law while citing “the importance of protecting the techniques and procedures that D.E.A. agents rely upon to protect our nation.”

The report cited field offices’ complaints that the program had wasted time with a high volume of low-quality leads, resulting in agents scrutinizing people “without any connection to illicit activity.” But the D.E.A. eventually refined its analysis to produce fewer but higher-quality leads, and the D.E.A. said it had led to arrests and seizures of drugs, guns, cars and illicit cash.

 

• Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in

 

 

The idea for the nationwide program originated in a D.E.A. operation in Chicago, when a subpoena for three months of purchase records from a local store led to two arrests and “significant seizures of drugs and related proceeds,” it said.

But Sarah St. Vincent, a Human Rights Watch researcher who flagged the slip-up on Twitter, argued that it was an abuse to suck Americans’ names into a database that would be analyzed to identify criminal suspects, based solely upon their purchase of a lawful product.

Ms. Vincent, who wrote a report last year criticizing “parallel construction” — the practice of concealing an intelligence program by reobtaining the same data, through a traditional targeted subpoena or other measures, to submit it as court evidence — also flagged a 2008 email cited in the report in which a D.E.A. official wrote, “Unless a federal court tells us we can’t do this, I think we can continue this project.”

 

 

Because the D.E.A. was hiding the program, she pointed out, no judge would have an opportunity to evaluate it.

The report described a cursory review by D.E.A. lawyers but said the agency never developed a comprehensive analysis for why it was lawful for it to use the statute that authorized administrative subpoenas to obtain bulk records. The statute permits gathering records that are “relevant or material” to a drug investigation. Citing the D.E.A.’s “uniquely expansive use” of this subpoena authority, the report called that failure “troubling.”

In the spring of 2013, the report said, the D.E.A. submitted its database to a joint operations hub where law enforcement agencies working together on organized crime and drug enforcement could mine it. But F.B.I. agents questioned whether the data had been lawfully acquired, and the bureau banned its officials from gaining access to it.

The F.B.I. agents “explained that running all of these names, which had been collected without foundation, through a massive government database and producing comprehensive intelligence products on any ‘hits,’ which included detailed information on family members and pictures, ‘didn’t sit right,’” the report said.

Then, in June 2013, Mr. Snowden leaked a trove of files from the N.S.A., bringing to light that the agency was collecting Americans’ domestic calling records in bulk — and setting off an uproar.

An intelligence court had secretly blessed the N.S.A. effort under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which similarly permitted the government to collect records that were “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation. A federal appeals court in New York later rejected that interpretation of the law, and Congress ended that practice and replaced it with the USA Freedom Act in 2015.

Other bulk data collection or exploitation programs existed. The New York Times reported in November 2013 that the C.I.A. was using the same law to collect bulk records of international money transfers handled by companies like Western Union — including transactions into and out of the United States.

 

And the inspector general report also addressed two other D.E.A. programs that focused on call records, and whose existence was already public.

The first is the Hemisphere Project, which The Times first reported in September 2013. It has involved AT&T analyzing its vast database of historical logs about Americans’ phone calls on behalf of counterdrug agents. A section of the report that discusses what appears to be Hemisphere — its name is redacted — says it is still operating.

The other was a D.E.A. program that used administrative subpoenas to collect bulk logs of outgoing international phone calls from the United States to countries linked to drug trafficking. The Justice Department disclosed its existence, which began in the first Bush administration, in a 2015 court filing, and it was later the subject of a detailed report by USA Today. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had ordered the D.E.A. to shut it down in September 2013 — the same time it shuttered the money-counter purchase records program.

 

[blueskyline]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/02/pentagon-testing-mass-surveillance-balloons-over-midwest-report-says/1906094001/.....................

Pentagon launching drug surveillance balloons over Midwest

Lisa Kaczke

Sioux Falls Argus Leader

 

 

 

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Unmanned surveillance balloons are being launched from South Dakota to conduct surveillance over the Midwest, prompting concerns about privacy violations.

The Pentagon is testing the high-altitude, solar-powered balloons across six states, The Guardian reported on Friday.

The balloons were launched to provide "a persistent surveillance system" for narcotic trafficking and homeland security threats, according to a filing with the Federal Communications Commission.

 The FCC authorized the the Sierra Nevada Corp., a Nevada-based national security and aerospace contractor, "experimental special temporary authorization" for the balloons on July 12.

Roughly two dozen small balloons carrying radars that can track vehicles will journey over Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri before ending up in Illinois, the Guardian. The special contract expires on Sept. 1, the filing shows.

Mystery:GPS glitch telling ships they're parked at airport may be anti-drone measure

The balloons were launched from Baltic, about 20 miles north of Sioux Falls, and will travel up to a maximum altitude of 65,000 feet above ground in a radius of 250 miles, according to the filing.

 

The British newspaper reported that the U.S. Southern Command commissioned the tests, and the balloons are carrying sensors and communication gear capable of detecting every vehicle in motion in a 25-mile range beneath the balloon. It's unknown if the tests are connected to any active investigations and if vehicle data would be stored or passed onto other agencies.

Southcom referred the Argus Leader's request for a comment to the Pentagon, which didn't respond. The Sierra Nevada Corp. did not return the Argus Leader's requests for comment.

 

The Guardian reported that Sioux Falls business Raven Aerostar supplied the balloons and launched them from its South Dakota facility about a month ago. The company didn't return the Argus Leader's request for comment. Raven has also supplied the balloons used by Project Loon, an experiment by Google parent company Alphabet to test beaming internet connectivity down from balloons.

Privacy concerns

The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota raised concerns that the balloons' surveillance could violate South Dakotans' privacy, and called on the military to be clear about it's actions in South Dakota.

 

 

 

The technology is capable of recording and storing all public movement over entire cities or metro areas, and that level of mass surveillance destroys any level of anonymity South Dakotans have, according to Libby Skarin, policy director for the ACLU of South Dakota.

"There are so many unanswered questions here,” Skarin said. “What kind of information is being collected? What information is being stored? Who has access to this information? Is the surveillance for law enforcement purposes? At a minimum, there should be consultation and approval from local communities before the federal government subjects South Dakotans to area-wide surveillance."

The technology was developed for battlefield activities such as finding improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it has migrated to civilian use without any oversight, according to Skarin.

"Technology like this runs the risk of turning South Dakota into a surveillance stat and is violating the privacy of every South Dakotan. We're not talking about closed-circuit TV cameras or cameras in discrete places," Skarin said. "This is area-wide surveillance that essentially creates a pervasive checkpoint over entire cities and metro area."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of privacy three times in the last seven years when it comes to advances in technology. In the most recent case in 2018, the court ruled that the government violates the Fourth Amendment by accessing without a search warrant historical records containing the physical locations of cell phones.

The Court said that there's a distinction between being observable where law enforcement can follow a person and being observable in the day of technological advances where a camera can follow an entire area.

Contributing: Shelby Fleig of The Des Moines Register

 

[blueskyline]

As we are getting closer to what may or may not be an end to this ride . I began to try and do things like try to purchase counting /counterfeit machines to check my currency . And research the laws around me that pertain to transporting currency to a Bank of Exchange . In both instances I find my self disappointed in the search and seizure laws and my unsuccessful attempt to purchase a counting counterfeit machine from 2 different well known online stores . 10 days ago I attempted to purchase a counting machine . Fed Ex left a delivery report stating it was placed at my doorstep . Which it was not . The second attempt to purchase was from a different On Line store . Same result . The delivery had reported the counting machine delivered at my door . But no delivery . That makes 2 separate purchases for counting machines . From different sources . And still no machine . I found the article above after some frustration . That looks like the reason why I did not receive the counting machines .