"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

epartment of Homeland Security

DHS Directives System

Instruction Number:

110

001

Revision Number:

Issue Date:

6/8/2012

OPERATIONAL USE OF SOCIAL

MEDIA

Purpose

Instruction

implement

Department of Ho

meland Security (DHS) Directi

110

01,

Operational Use of Social Media

II.

Scope

This Instruction applies throughout DHS regarding the

access

to and collection, use,

maintenance

retention

, disclosure, deletion, and destruction of Personally Identifiable

Information

(PII) in relation to operational use of social media, with the exception

operational use of social media for

(a)

communications and

outreach

with the public

authorized by the Office of Public Affairs

;

(b) situational awareness

by the

National

Operatio

ns Center

;

(

situational awareness

omponents

other than the

National

Operations Center, upon approval by the Chief Privacy Officer following completion of a

Social Media Operational Use Template

;

and (

)

the conduct of authorized intelligence

activit

ies carried out by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the intelligence and

counterintelligence elements of the United States Coast Guard, or any other

Component

performing authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence functions,

in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12333

, as amended

This

Instruction does not apply to the Office of the Inspector General; however, the OIG will

comply with the spirit of the Instruction.

III.

References

Public Law 107

347, “E

Government Act of 200

”

as amended

, Section

208 [44 U.S.C.

3501 note]

Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 552a, “Records maintained

on individuals” [The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended]

Title 6, U.S.C., Section 142,

“

Privacy

fficer

”

Title 44, U.S.C., Chapter 3

5, Subchapter III, “

nformation Security” [The

Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, as amended

(FISMA)

]

Instruction #

110

001

Revision

Title 6

C.F.R., Chapter 1, Part 5, “

Disclosure o

records and information”

Directive 047

01, “Privacy Policy and Compliance”

DHS Sen

sitive Systems Policy Directive 4300A

Privacy

related memoranda issued by the Office of Management and

Budget

including:

OMB Memorandum 10

, “Guidance for Online Use of Web

Measurement and Customization Technologies” (June 25, 2010)

OMB Memorandum 10

, “Guidance for Agency Use of Third

Party Websites and Applications”

(June 25, 2010)

OMB

Memorandum 07

16, “Safeguarding Against and Responding

to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information" (May 22, 2007

)

OMB

Memorandum 06

20, “FY 2006 Reporting Instructions

for

the

Federal Information Security Management Act and Agency Privacy

Management” (July 17, 2006)

OMB

Memorandum 06

19, “Reporting Incidents Involving

Personally Identifiable Information and Incorporating the Cost for

ecurity

in Agency Information Technology Investments” (July 12, 2006)

OMB

Memorandum 06

15, “Safeguarding Personally Identifiable

Information” (May 22, 2006)

OMB

Circular No. A

130, “

Transmittal Memorandum #4,

Management of Federal Information Resources” (November 28, 2000

)

Chief Privacy Officer

and published on the Privacy Office website

, including:

02,

DHS Policy

Regarding Privacy Impact Assessments

(December 30,

2008)

01,

The Fair

Information Practice Principles: Framework for Privacy Policy at the

Department of Homeland Security

(December 29, 2008)

Handbook for Safeguarding Sensitive Personally Identifiable

Information at

DHS (

March

12)

Instruction #

110

001

Revision

IV.

Definitions

Counsel means the Office of the General Counsel attorney, from either the

Immediate Office of the General Counsel or component counsel, assigned to

provide legal advice to the component covered by this Instruction.

Fair Inf

ormation Practice Principles

means the policy framework

adopted by the Department in

Directive

047

, Privacy Policy and Compliance,

regarding the

collection, use, maintenance

, disclosure

, deletion

, or destruction

Personally Identifiable Information.

Individual

means a natural person, including a United States citizen,

Legal Permanent Resident, visitor to the United States,

alien,

DHS employee, or

DHS contractor.

Operational Use

means

authorized use of social media to

collect

personally identifiable

nformation

for the purpose of enhancing situational

awareness, investigating an individual

in a criminal, civil, or administrative

context, making a benefit

determination about a person,

making

a personnel

etermination about a

Department employee

making

a suitability determination

about a prospective Department employee, or for any other

official Department

purpose that has the potential to affect the rights, privileges, or benefits of

individual

Operational use does not include the use of search eng

ines for

general Internet research, nor does it include the use of social media for

professional development such as training and continuing education

or for

facilitating

internal meetings

Personally Identifiable Information (PII

)

means

any

nformation

that

permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred,

including

other information

that is

linked or linkable to

individual

For example, when linked or linkable to an individual, such information

includes a

name,

ocial

ecurity number, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name,

Alien Registration

Number

account number, license number, vehicle identifier

number,

license plate

number

device identifier or serial number

, internet protocol

address,

biometric

identifier

(

e.g.,

facial recognition

photograph, fingerprint, iris

scan, voice print)

education

al information

, financial

information

, medical

information

, criminal or employment

information

information created specifically

to identify or authenticate an individual (

e.g.,

a random generated number)

Privacy

Compliance Documentation

means any document required by

statute or by the Chief Privacy Officer that supports compliance with DHS privacy

policy, procedures, or requirements, including but not limited to the Social Media

Operational Use Template (Template)

, Privacy Impact Assessments

(PIAs)

System of Records Notices

(SORNs)

Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for

Instruction #

110

001

Revision

---

_JU

Mary

Ellen

Callahan

Date

Chief

Privacy

O icer

Components

complete

implementation

this

Instruction,

including

obtaining

approval

from

the

Chief

Privacy

O icer

Templates

for

Late Boston Marathon Suspect Was on Terrorism Watch List

More details have emerged on how U.S. intelligence agencies handled warnings about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects well before the attacks. The National Counterterrorism Center added Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the government’s main terrorism watch list more than a year ago at the CIA’s request. The move came after the Russian government relayed concerns about Tsarnaev to the CIA, as it had also done with the FBI. The FBI had interviewed him but had found no evidence of wrongdoing. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defended the FBI’s claim it did everything it could with the information it had at the time.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: "You know, all of these — all of these issues are obviously under investigation. What we do know is that the FBI took action in response to that notification, investigated the elder brother, and investigated thoroughly, and came to the conclusion that there was no derogatory information, no indication of terrorist activity or associations, either foreign or domestic, at that time."

News that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was on the intelligence radar is spurring calls for federal agencies to re-examine their priorities, particularly a focus on sting operations that critics say constitute entrapment. In an editorial, The Washington Post writes: "The FBI has devoted considerable resources to sting operations against people it judges to be terror suspects, sometimes on what look like dubious grounds. ... [I]t’s not clear that a sometimes far-fetched plot would have gone forward without the encouragement and help of FBI informants."

Justice Department “Reclassifies Documents,” Fights to Withhold Ground-breaking Immigration Court Decision on El Salvadorian Vides Casanova

April 15, 2013

tags: Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, doj, FOIA, freedom of information act, National Security Archive, New York Times, United States, United States Department of Justice

by Emily Willard

The Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to earn its second annual Rosemary Award for Worst Open Government Performance with its abysmal performance regarding a ground breaking decision in an immigration case of Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, former defense minister of El Salvador who is implicated in dozens of cases of torture and extrajudicial execution. To withhold this information from the public the DOJ made up FOIA procedures and erroneously withheld previously declassified information in its misguided attempt to preserve secrecy surrounding the case.
The New York Times filed a FOIA request, numerous appeals, and eventually filed suit against the DOJ, for copies of Judge Grim’s final decision regarding the U.S. Immigration Court case against Vides Casanova. Last week, the New York Times partially won the FOIA case by getting a copy of Judge Grim’s February 2012 decision released, but with redactions. Among the redactions were all of the witnesses’ names, even though it was a public hearing and their names are available thanks to extensive news coverage. Additionally, the expert witness report, which includes hundreds of pages of declassified U.S. documents obtained by the National Security Archive and used as evidence in the court is being held from the public as “confidential.” These documents remain confidential despite the fact that they were released through the FOIA and through President Clinton’s executive orders for declassification in response to the El Salvador Truth Commission request.

Example of “reclassified” document – Reports meeting of Ambassador White and leaders of El Salvador Armed Forces during which officers attempt to deny military involvement in and subsequent cover-up of American churchwomen killings. See full document here.

Here is the chronology of the New York Times battle to get the written decision of a public trial released:

September 2012 – NYT submits a FOIA for the full release of both decisions written by Judge Grim in February and August of 2012.
October 2012 – DOJ denies request claiming that the decisions were “preliminary,” and the agency had not issued a final agency decision. The DOJ also cited personal privacy concerns. [This is absurd. The hearing was public, and the general outline of the decision was made public in February of 2012, while the details were withheld.]
November 2012 – NYT files an administrative appeal, arguing that it knew “nothing about the FOIA exemption determination that would turn on the absence or existence of a final decision,” arguing that the denial was improper.
January 2013 – DOJ denies the appeal, simply citing the B6 exemption, making no reference to whether the decisions were preliminary or not.
February 2013 – NYT submitted a letter to the DOJ stating that the denial of access is contrary to the First Amendment and common law rights of access.
April 2, 2013 – NYT files suit against the DOJ in the District Court of New York after receiving no response to February letter.
April 4, 2013 – DOJ responds to February letter without mention of lawsuit, treating the February letter as “request for reconsideration” (which does not exist as a procedure of the FOIA) and releases a redacted version of Judge Grim’s February 2012 decision.

The DOJ is the agency in charge of enforcing the FOIA. How can the DOJ appropriately enforce the FOIA if it does not follow the FOIA itself? This is also especially worrisome considering the rosy report on the state of FOIA presented by Melanie Pustay, director of the Office of Information Policy at DOJ.
Why this all the more important…
Carolyn Patty Blum, a human rights attorney of the Center for Justice and Accountability explains that “this [Vides Casanova] may be the highest military commander of any country” who has been subject to a new law stating that a commander can be ordered removed from the United States, if he has “ordered, assisted or participated in torture or extrajudicial killing. Key to the ruling is that it is sufficient to know or have reason to know about the acts of subordinates and then fail to prevent or punish those acts.” The New York Times reports that this is the first time that a high-ranking foreign military commander will be deported under the new human rights violations law which was passed in 2004.
This is also the first time to have a ruling about very specific cases of torture, extrajudicial killings and/or disappearance. Judge Grim’s finding that General Vides Casanova “assisted or otherwise participated” in the killing of four churchwomen is probably the best known case in the US.
The implications that this case has on the human rights world are huge, and important precedents have been set – all the more important that the DOJ moves to release the report in its entirely, along with expert witness reports and accompanying documentation, rather than going out of its way to act contrary to DOJ’s very own Attorney General Eric Holder’s memo calling agencies to act with a “presumption of openness.”

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Late Boston Marathon Suspect Was on Terrorism Watch List

Justice Department “Reclassifies Documents,” Fights to Withhold Ground-breaking Immigration Court Decision on El Salvadorian Vides Casanova

Share this: