July, 28 2020, 12:00am EDT
Rep. Lofgren Calls on Barr to Disclose Basis of Surveillance of Protesters
Attorney General Barr cites general "law enforcement powers to detect and prevent crime" as basis for surveillance of protesters
WASHINGTON
During Attorney General William Barr's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, Representative Lofgren called for answers to roiling questions about the government's deployment of advanced surveillance techniques against protesters across the country. Citing the potential deployment of cell-site simulators, face recognition, and dragnet surveillance of internet activity, Representative Lofgren demanded the Attorney General explain the legal basis on which this warrantless surveillance is based. The exchange begins approximately 2 hours and 10 minutes into the hearing, available here.
Attorney General Barr said in part that he "cannot speak to those instances if in fact they occurred," and added that "most of our cyber activities are conducted by the FBI under their law enforcement powers to detect and prevent crime."
"This is about the privacy of all Americans, and it's all being violated," Representative Lofgren responded.
The following statement can be attributed to Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel at Demand Progress:
"Today, Attorney General Barr refused to acknowledge whether the government is conducting dragnet surveillance of internet activity. He further refused to acknowledge widely reported mass surveillance practices that he may have authorized when sending the DEA and other agencies after protesters. The public needs to know whether Attorney General Barr thinks President Trump can conduct mass surveillance of protesters without Congressional authorization.
The Attorney General has personally authorized lawless, mass surveillance in this country before, and did so by relying on radically aggressive interpretations of executive power, by secretly abusing statutory authority, and by hiding it under the DEA. Representative Lofgren is asking critically important questions. It is frighteningly plausible that Attorney General Barr has told the Trump administration it may conduct domestic mass surveillance with effectively no limits, potentially even in the absence of Congressional authorization. The consequences would be staggering and the chilling of free speech is already being felt.
The planes are in the air. We need these answers now."
On July 21, Senators Leahy and Lee sent a letterto Attorney General asking related questions with a deadline of August 7. That letter notes that "any surveillance conducted in the absence of statutory authorities and congressional oversight would be extraordinarily concerning and illegal.
Last week, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released questions to the nominee for general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Senator Wyden asked this question and got the following answer (presented in full):
QUESTION 8: Does the government collect web browsing and internet search history pursuant to Section 215? If so, what are or should be any limitations on such collection or the dissemination and use of such information? Does the government collect webbrowsing or internet search history pursuant to FISA Pen Register/Trap and Trace authorities?ANSWER: I believe it is important for the IC to use its authorities appropriately against valid intelligence targets. The amendments to Title V of FISA made by Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act expired on March 15, 2020 and, to date, have not been reauthorized.
Attorney General Barr's refusal to answer Representative Lofgren's questions today adds to concerns that all of this may be occurring in secret without Congressional authorization or oversight.
Demand Progress Education Fund and the FreedomWorks Foundation have published many resources about Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act at www.Section215.org. In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that the government was secretly using Section 215 to collect all calling records of all customers of major telephone providers, which is only one of the ways this authority has been abused over the past two decades.
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'A Moral Crisis': Wars Fuel Spike in Global Hunger as Arms Giants Rake in ​Record​ Profits
"It is unforgivable that over 281 million people are suffering acute hunger while the world's richest continue to make extraordinary profits."
Apr 25, 2024
A report published Wednesday found that the number of people around the world suffering acute hunger surged to 282 million last year amid the intensifying climate crisis and military conflicts—including Israel's assault on Gaza—that have further enriched weapons manufacturers.
The Global Report on Food Crises estimates that 281.6 million people in 59 countries faced high levels of acute food insecurity in 2023, an increase of 24 million compared to the previous year.
2023 marked the fifth consecutive year that global hunger has worsened, according to the new report, which found that Gazans account for 80% of the people facing imminent famine globally. Dozens of people in the Gaza Strip, mostly children, have starved to death in recent weeks as Israel continues to bomb the territory and impede the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian aid.
The report, a collaborative project of more than a dozen organizations including the World Food Program (WFP), said military conflict was the "primary driver affecting 20 countries with nearly 135 million people in acute food insecurity—almost half of the global number."
"The Sudan faced the largest deterioration due to conflict, with 8.6 million more people facing high levels of acute food insecurity as compared with 2022," the report found.
Extreme weather events fueled by the continued burning of oil, gas, and coal "were the primary driversin 18 countries where over 77 million people faced high levels of acute food insecurity, up from 12 countries with 57 million people in 2022," the document added.
"When we talk about acute food insecurity, we are talking about hunger so severe that it poses an immediate threat to people's livelihoods and lives," said Dominique Burgeon, director of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Liaison Office in Geneva. "This is hunger that threatens to slide into famine and cause widespread death."
Emily Farr, global food and economic security lead at Oxfam International, said in response to the new figures that "the global hunger crisis is fundamentally a moral crisis."
"It is unforgivable that over 281 million people are suffering acute hunger while the world's richest continue to make extraordinary profits, including the same aerospace and defense corporations helping to fuel conflict, the main driver of hunger," said Farr. "The top 100 arms companies have hoarded nearly $600 billion in revenues just in 2022—enough to cover the U.N. global humanitarian appeal almost 13 times."
"States must prioritize justice and peace over politics, and radically reform global peace and security bodies to protect international law rather than perpetuate impunity."
Israel's war on Gaza and Russia's assault on Ukraine have been a major boon for the global weapons industry, propelling arms makers to record profits as governments ramp up orders for tanks, howitzers, missiles, and other lethal military equipment.
"This is a form of corporate welfare not only for the largest weapons manufacturers, like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, and General Dynamics, which have seen their stock prices skyrocket, but also for companies that are not typically seen as part of the weapons industry, such as Caterpillar, Ford, and Toyota," the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) noted in a recent analysis.
Late last year, AFSC created an online database that allows users to see which companies are profiting from Israel's military assault on the Gaza Strip.
WFP's global hunger report was released on the same day U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law a measure containing tens of billions of dollars in additional military assistance for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
Reutersreported Thursday that Lockheed Martin and RTX—major arms manufacturers—"stand to profit" from the aid package's "$95 billion of mostly new weapons funding."
"The United States needs to buy and restock 'Tomahawk, AMRAAM, Coyote, SM-6,' RTX's CFO Neil Mitchill told Reuters in an interview, listing a long-range cruise missile, an air-to-air missile, a small drone, and a ground-based missile that can be used for air defense," the outlet noted. "In most cases, the U.S. has either sent the munitions to Ukraine or used them to defend Red Sea shipping lanes."
Farr said Wednesday that "we cannot drastically change course without a global awakening."
"States must prioritize justice and peace over politics, and radically reform global peace and security bodies to protect international law rather than perpetuate impunity," said Farr. "Governments must also rehaul our global food system, tax the rich to invest in the public majority—the small farmers, workers, and vulnerable communities—and support green economies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Should Celebrate': FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules
"Today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people," said one advocate.
Apr 25, 2024
Open internet advocates on Thursday applauded the Federal Communications Commission's long-anticipated vote to revive net neutrality rules and reestablish FCC oversight of broadband.
The 3-2 vote along party lines to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act came seven months after FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced the push in the wake of the U.S. Senate confirming Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks joined Rosenworcel and Gomez to launch the rulemaking process last year and finalize the policy change on Thursday. Commissioner Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington both aligned with the powerful telecom industry by opposing the effort to prevent internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful online content.
Demand Progress Education Fund senior campaigner Joey DeFrancesco said the revival "has been desperately needed" since former FCC Chair Ajit Pai—an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump—led the "disastrous decision" in 2017 to gut a 2015 agency policy codifying the principle that has been foundational to the internet since its inception.
"Internet access is not a luxury, but a necessity to participate in society and survive in our modern economy," DeFrancesco stressed. "The FCC's new rule will ensure the commission has the full ability to expand broadband and the authority to ensure access to an open internet."
"The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "everyone should celebrate today's FCC vote."
"Public support for net neutrality is overwhelming, and people understand why we need a federal watchdog to protect everyone's access to the most essential communications platform of our time," he noted. "The FCC heard the outcry and did its job: delivering on promises to stand with internet users and against big telecom companies and their trade groups, which have spent untold millions of dollars to spread lies about net neutrality and thwart any oversight or regulation."
Aaron praised Rosenworcel and her staff for leading the restoration effort, as well as Starks and Gomez for working with her to reverse the Trump FCC's move and ensure "that the agency can once again protect internet users whenever big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon attempt to harm them."
"Big cable and phone companies won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that these companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination," he emphasized. "This is what democracy should look like: Public servants responding to public sentiment, taking steps to protect just and reasonable services and free expression, and showing that the government is capable of defending the public interest."
Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and current Common Cause special adviser, was similarly enthusiastic, saying that "if I weren't out of the country today, I would be personally at the FCC jumping up and down, saluting the majority for reinstituting the network neutrality rules that were so foolishly eliminated by the previous commission."
"Our communications technologies are evolving so swiftly, affecting so many important aspects of our individual lives, that they must be available to all of us on a nondiscriminatory basis. And they must advance the public interest, protecting consumers, fostering competition, and providing us all the news and information we need as we fight to maintain our democracy," he continued. "We still have much to do; but today, let's celebrate a huge step forward."
The vote notably comes during an election year—and as Democratic President Joe Biden, a net neutrality supporter, is gearing up for a November rematch against Trump.
"The internet is crucial to civic engagement in the United States today. It functions as a virtual public square where social justice movements organize and garner support," said Common Cause's Ishan Mehta. "The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, also piled on the praise, proclaiming that "today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people."
"We are thrilled that the FCC now has the authority it needs to protect consumers, promote the exercise of First Amendment rights online, and ensure that everyone has access to high-quality, affordable internet," she said. "However, we urge the commission not to exercise its authority to preempt consistent state laws that grant consumers additional protections."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, also celebrated the vote while stressing that the commission's work is far from over. In addition to warning of court fights to come, he said that "broadband providers will continue attempting to rebrand their old plans for internet fast and slow lanes, hoping to sneak them through."
"The FCC will need to diligently enforce its rules," Bergmayer argued, "including clarifying that discrimination in favor of certain apps or categories of traffic 'impairs' and 'degrades' traffic that is left in the slow lane, and that broadband providers cannot simply take apps that people use on the internet every day and package them as a separate 'nonbroadband' service."
"The FCC must also ensure that practices that are not expressly prohibited but still unreasonably interfere with the ability of end users to freely use the internet, or of edge providers to freely compete, are disallowed," he added. "These practices include discriminatory zero-rating and network interconnection practices."
Like Leventoff, he also recognized the vital role of states with stricter policies, saying that those "with excellent net neutrality and broadband consumer protection statutes, like California, can be a nationwide model for other states and the FCC to adopt to strengthen their own rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Don't Have Time for This': New Biden Power Sector Rules Spare Existing Gas Plants
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions," one campaigner said.
Apr 25, 2024
President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agency announced a final quartet of rules on Thursday to limit climate-warming emissions from existing coal and new gas-powered plants, as well as reduce mercury, wastewater, and coal ash pollution from coal facilities.
While several environmental groups and climate advocates praised the new rules, others pointed out that they still exclude emissions from existing gas-powered plants, which are currently the nation's leading source of electricity. A rule on these plants has been pushed into the future, likely until after the November election, which means they may not be regulated for years if pro-fossil fuel Republican Donald Trump retakes the White House.
"We don't have time for this half-assed BS, EPA!" Genevieve Guenther, founding director of End Climate Silence, wrote on social media. "Later is too late."
"As critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
The carbon dioxide rule is the first federal rule to limit climate pollution from currently running coal plants, according toThe Associated Press. It mandates that coal plants that intend to operate past 2039 and new gas-powered plants must cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by that date. The EPA calculates that this would cut CO2 emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047, which is equal to taking 328 million gas-powered cars off the road or cancelling power sector emissions for almost a year. By the same date, it would cost the industry $19 billion to comply, but generate a net $370 billion in economic benefits due to reduced costs from healthcare and extreme weather. It would also prevent as many as 1,200 early deaths and 1,900 new asthma cases in 2035 alone.
The effect of the rule would be to force coal plants to either cease operations or find a way to remove their emissions with carbon, capture, and storage technology, according to the AP.
"The EPA's new rulemaking once again claims that carbon capture is an effective means of reducing climate pollution, even though it has never worked in the real world," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The Biden administration must take aggressive actions outside of this rulemaking to rein in fossil fuels—primarily by using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals. Pretending that carbon capture can dramatically reduce climate pollution is nothing but a dangerous fantasy."
The New York Times reported that the rules "could deliver a death blow" to coal, which has already declined from producing 52% of U.S. electricity in 1990 to 16.2% in 2023.
"EPA's new carbon standards for coal-fired power plants, coupled with parallel rulemakings cracking down on mercury and air toxics, coal ash, and toxic power plant wastewater discharge, rightly force the hand of all coal plants that remain: clean up or make an exit plan," Julie McNamara, a senior analyst and deputy policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement.
Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie O'Hanlon called the regulations a "game-changer."
"These regulations are the kind of bold action that young people have been fighting for," O'Hanlon added. "President Biden must continue moving us toward ending the fossil fuel era: It's what science demands and what young people want to see from him."
The Biden administration has promised to eliminate power sector emissions by 2035; the new regulations, along with the Inflation Reduction Act, put the U.S. on course to slash those emissions by 75% by that date, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over," NRDC president and CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement. "These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source. They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules."
Beyond fossil fuel control, the other three rules would strengthen toxic metals standards by 67% and mercury standards by 70%, cut coal wastewater pollution by more than 660 million pounds per year, and establish for the first time regulations on the disposal of coal ash in certain areas.
"The suite of power plant rules announced by EPA Administrator Regan represents a significant step forward in the fight for ambitious climate action and environmental justice," Chitra Kumar, the managing director of UCS' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement. "Together, these rules help address a long-standing legacy of public health and environmental harms stemming from coal-fired power plants that scientific studies show have disproportionately hurt communities of color and low-income communities."
However, the groups also said the administration must move to regulate existing gas plants.
UCS' McNamara said that "as critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions—and it must look beyond carbon to reckon with the full suite of health-harming pollution these plants disproportionately and inequitably force on the communities that surround them," McNamara added. "When all the heavy costs of fossil fuel-fired power plants are tallied, it's unequivocally clear that clean energy presents the just and necessary path ahead."
NRDC's Bapna agreed, saying, "Existing gas-fired power plants are massive carbon emitters. They kick out other dangerous pollution that most hurts low-income communities and people of color. The EPA must cut all of that pollution—and soon—in a way that confronts the climate crisis and protects frontline communities."
At the same time, climate campaigners are already mobilizing to defend the new rules from Republican lawmakers who want to reverse them. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she would introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to "overturn the EPA's job-killing regulations announced today."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules," Sunrise's O'Hanlon said. "They're making clear whose side they are on. They'd rather please the oil and gas CEOs who back their campaign than save tens of thousands of lives."
"The regulations are clear eyed about the science: To stop the climate crisis and save lives, we must move off fossil fuels," O'Hanlon continued. "Biden can keep building trust with young people by declaring a climate emergency and rejecting new fossil fuel projects in the coming months."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular