GovernmentExecutive.com

Three senior Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee Thursday officially requested detailed information from the Homeland Security Department on its plan to open an office that uses satellites for domestic purposes.

Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Intelligence Subcommittee Chairwoman Jane Harman, D-Calif., and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Chris Carney, D-Pa., called for a moratorium on the program pending further review.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and the department's chief intelligence officer, Charles Allen, the lawmakers said they need to understand the legal underpinnings of the program.

The department plans to open an office Oct. 1 that will coordinate the use of satellites and space technology for domestic purposes, such as border security, critical infrastructure protection, tracking natural disasters and, eventually, supporting law enforcement activities.

Allen told the committee during a hearing Thursday that he is confident the program is legal and will comply with all privacy and civil liberties laws. He said the department is taking over an office inside the Interior Department that has provided satellite imagery for domestic purposes for years. But he said the office operated in an ad hoc manner, while the new office will be more structured and have multiple layers of oversight.

Allen told reporters after the hearing that the office will not immediately begin to provide satellite support to state and local law enforcement agencies. Instead, he said a working group will spend the next year determining legal and policy procedures for providing support to law enforcement.

House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y., did not see any constitutional problems with the program. GOP aides added that a moratorium on the program would not seem to make sense, as satellite imagery has been provided for civil uses and even law enforcement in some cases for years.

But Harman told CongressDaily she is worried about giving the administration unchecked power.

"I'm very aware of the capabilities of military satellites. I know what they can do," she said. "I am very concerned that a program that permits part of Homeland to get satellite feeds could, unless it's carefully restricted, go in directions that are improper."

She noted that the administration ran into problems with its warrantless wiretapping activities. Congress is crafting a long-term legal foundation for that.

Harman noted that Homeland Security recently decided to scrap the ADVISE data-mining program after government investigators determined that the program was putting personal information at risk.

"This is one of the rare opportunities in the last six years to be on the front end of a new intelligence program and help design what it is going to look like," Harman said of the satellite program.

Harman said the Homeland Security Committee will not authorize the program until the department justifies it with documentation. She said the department will be expected to "promptly" comply with demands in the letter.

"Our goal is not to delay; our goal is to exercise our constitutional duty," she said.

A department spokesman said, "We will provide timely responses to any remaining questions, and with that information we believe the committee will be satisfied."

COMMENTS

• Before you get to the legalities -- Has a single efficacious and cost-effective use of domestic satellite surveillance been substantiated and documented? No! We're assured that this is worth it. Anything can be justified if you apply the "1 percent doctrine". If you applied the standards the private sector uses in deciding appropriate risk controls this could never be justified. Charles E. Allen, Jr. Posted September 14, 2007 10:46 PM
• Being a staunch believer in individual rights and freedoms, I tried to find fault with Dan B.’s assertion. I could not. He has a point. There is a limit to privacy and that limit has been defined and ruled upon by the courts. Some of the limits are reached when you are in public without a reasonable assurance of privacy (e.g. the paparazzi hounding celebrities – BUT without actual trespass), when you abandon items without assurances they are to be secured (e.g. throwing stuff in trash cans at the sidewalk), or the-rather-obvious anything that is transmitted via airwaves and may be intercepted. But … Please notice the article did not restrict itself to optical observation satellites as we seem to be discussing. It didn’t even limit the satellite program to government satellites. It merely implied such. It did not even limit the satellite programs to observation in open air scenarios. May I offer some situations that may be areas of concern? 1. Coercing cooperation with telecommunications companies to relay/piggy back all communications signals into the government’s system. I THINK I contracted with my telecommunications company to preserve my privacy. I THINK they would be violating our contractual agreement to discuss or disclose (without warrant) my calls, information, and allow access to my conversations unless they routinely broadcast the information with RF technology. This has a terrestrial case as a precedent; a San Francisco telecom company is being sued for cooperating with the government, without a warrant. 2. Fact: Ground penetrating satellite RADAR technology exists. Fact: Machines, and therefore people, can read infrared images through walls. Questions: a. Are satellites currently capable of viewing into our homes via RADAR or infrared imaging? b. If they can, or should they be able to in the future, would such capabilities be allowed, without warrant, by this law? Talk about Big Brother watching out for you... Tip off Posted September 11, 2007 4:30 PM
• Amendment IV establishes "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Viewing someone in plain sight is not a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, whether it is by satellite or with bare eyes. Dan B. Posted September 10, 2007 8:32 AM