This came to me first from Janus Online, in a post titled, FBI Deputizes Business, which he in turn gets from The Progressive:
It gets more disquieting the longer you read:
The ACLU has gone on record with significant concerns that ought to be (in this case) those of any libertarian-minded citizen:
Or even questions about the FBI's priorities in alerting private industry buddies before elected officials in cases of terror warnings:
I shouldn't have to elucidate all the ways that this is dangerous to any free society, but I will anyway--at least the short form:
The concept that the State can decide to give preferential police protection and special law enforcement perks to those businesses and corporations who sign up as effective paramilitary partners is as corrosive to the idea of a democratic republic as it is to the concept of free market capitalism.
I regularly attend homeland security workshops, interacting with public and private sector representatives in all sorts of contexts, and you know what?
They never mention Infragard in any context that it can be overheard by anyone not known to be a member.
Google "Infragard" and see what happens.
This is another one of my campaign questions for John, Hillary, and Barack, I think.
Of course no one is going to ask about it.
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.
InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.
“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.
It gets more disquieting the longer you read:
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”
He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”
The ACLU has gone on record with significant concerns that ought to be (in this case) those of any libertarian-minded citizen:
“There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers—into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”
Or even questions about the FBI's priorities in alerting private industry buddies before elected officials in cases of terror warnings:
On November 1, 2001, the FBI had information about a potential threat to the bridges of California. The alert went out to the InfraGard membership. Enron was notified, and so, too, was Barry Davis, who worked for Morgan Stanley. He notified his brother Gray, the governor of California.
“He said his brother talked to him before the FBI,” recalls Steve Maviglio, who was Davis’s press secretary at the time. “And the governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his defense, he said, ‘I was on the phone with my brother, who is an investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn’t the public know?’ ”
Maviglio still sounds perturbed about this: “You’d think an elected official would be the first to know, not the last.”
I shouldn't have to elucidate all the ways that this is dangerous to any free society, but I will anyway--at least the short form:
The concept that the State can decide to give preferential police protection and special law enforcement perks to those businesses and corporations who sign up as effective paramilitary partners is as corrosive to the idea of a democratic republic as it is to the concept of free market capitalism.
I regularly attend homeland security workshops, interacting with public and private sector representatives in all sorts of contexts, and you know what?
They never mention Infragard in any context that it can be overheard by anyone not known to be a member.
Google "Infragard" and see what happens.
This is another one of my campaign questions for John, Hillary, and Barack, I think.
Of course no one is going to ask about it.
Comments