TOPICS
TOPICS
House panels seek info on FBI data collection programs
Nine months after House Science Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee leaders wanted details about the FBI's plans for a massive data collection and tracking program, little has been done to address their concerns. Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., and ranking member James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., asked for a GAO report on the National Security Branch Analysis Center last June. House Oversight and Government Reform National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Chairman John Tierney, D-Mass., has joined their request.
The FBI sought $12 million for the center in fiscal 2008 to hire 59 employees, including 23 contractors and five FBI agents, according to the lawmakers' letter to the GAO. The effort would increase the FBI's ability to use "predictive models and patterns of behavior" to uncover terrorist sleeper cells, Justice Department documents said. The clearinghouse could hold 6 billion records by 2012, according to some estimates.
Yet the agency has "put very little, even in writing, to tell us that they're not going to tell us anything," Miller said Friday. "We asked them to tell us what the purpose was -- to tell us what they were doing and why -- and to tell us what safeguards would be put in place to make sure the information is not used inappropriately."
At a Wednesday hearing, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told FBI Director Robert Mueller that the program bore a striking resemblance to the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program, which was defunded by Congress in 2003. Mueller said the center would not create a database nor would it facilitate "data-mining" of information to which intelligence agencies do not already have access.
In the months since the lawmakers' request, subcommittee staffers have asked the FBI to explain its lack of cooperation with GAO, but they have been ignored, an aide for Miller said. The FBI did send GAO a schedule for document delivery this week, but it is unclear what they plan to make available and what they refuse to provide, the aide said.
"This isn't Matt Drudge asking; it's the United States Congress and they've taken the view that this is none of our business," said Miller, who noted he does not necessarily oppose the FBI's plans. He said he simply wants to know that it is taking precautions to protect citizens' privacy and civil liberties.
GAO spokesman Charles Young said work on the report is under way but did not have an end date. He refused to discuss the progress of the investigation or provide details about what has been submitted by the FBI. An FBI spokesman said documents requested in the case are under review by the Justice Department.
Former FBI agent Michael German, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the agency's refusal to cooperate "reflects a dangerous shift in the relationship Americans share with their government." Congress and the public need to "demand their right to know what these agencies are doing," he said. Collecting, retaining and analyzing data about innocent people will not improve national security or provide better information about terrorists, German said. "It will only bury analysts under reams of irrelevant data and send them on wild goose chases," he said.
COMMENTS
- “I'm sure the FBI/CIA are tired of being required to provide documents by a buch of nose pickers.” Now isn’t that a crying shame. Skeeter, if a Blue Dog President or Congress demanded to listen and record all your conversations, know the balance in your check book, and touted the fact that they could lock you away without the right to a lawyer; you’d be incensed. You seem to hold with some pride to your beliefs, even wallow in the image of the small-minded purveyor for small government; insistent on myopic justification for any action or expense. And yet you turn a blind eye and deaf ear when your Party Pacaderm does just that? They were the ones who grew the monstrosity known as the Department of Homeland Security. Sheesh, the name alone even conjures a goose-stepping image. I always find it hard to understand how people who express a desire for less government, less intrusive snooping by Uncle Sugar can tolerate, nay, even luxuriate in such a negation of their rights! He may not be a Rhodes Scholar but the current POTUS can certainly play a mean Piped Piper. If they still had the straight party vote switches, I’m sure you’d just need the one to pull on. It doesn’t matter the issues, the logic, the history … I can hear you saying “Why, my daddy voted pacaderm and what he did is good enough for me!” even as you’re standing calf deep in their effluent; saluting the passing parade. I’ve just got to ask, can’t you smell that? Get your finger out of your nose, Son! You don’t want a US president, you want a KING!! I’m also quite sure how you will sound come Jan 20th, 2009, with the shoe on the other foot. I can hear the squealing already. Tip off Posted March 17, 2008 4:22 PM
- I'm sure the FBI/CIA are tired of being required to provide documents by a buch of nose pickers. Who elected these "staffers" their requests should be handled just like a Drugg request and receive no priority. dan m ketter Posted March 10, 2008 6:54 PM
- I am hartened to see that congress is pressing the administration as part of their oversight duty in what the FBI and other government security and law enforcment agencies are doing and why. The publics right to know is limited, yes, but given the FBI's and NSA's own tacit admision of looking into private american citizens activity on the Internet in particular as well as cell phone activity worries me and obviously many americans. Indeed we should be seeking any and all information that is clearly terrorist activity at any cost, but collecting huge amounts of communication activity on average americans that may have overseas interests doesn't pass muster IMHO. Jeffrey A. Williams Posted March 10, 2008 5:39 PM









