Austin Fire Department (AFD) Assistant Chief Richard L. Davis has advocated for the study and will lead an 8-person team at AFD throughout its term. In 2013, he published a lengthy paper on “The Practicality of Utilizing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Damage Assessments” which is available for download on FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administration website.
In the work session, Assistant Chief Davis and Dr. Murphy make the case for the study, including a brief video presentation. At 39:20, Council Member Morrison follows up on Council Member Spelman’s initial voicing of privacy concerns. Assistant Chief Davis emphasized that the Texas Privacy Act, enrolled during the last legislative session, governs images captured by unmanned aircraft in the state of Texas.
In part, the unattributed response to Council Member Spelman’s questions identified “public perception” as one of three main “challenges” to the use of robotics in public safety applications:
It’s imperative to establish and enforce strict policy and procedures to improve public perception and ease any community concerns. Of the utmost importance will be adhering to the Federal and State laws already in place to protect against the invasion of privacy. Participating Public Safety flight teams will only consist of highly trained individuals that have met Federal Aviation Administration standards and abide by those edicts. Educating those we serve is paramount to the success of this program.
That bolsters the Assistant Chief’s initial response during the work session at 34:05:
…it boils down to trust and reliability. I have to ask do you trust your fire department to do the right thing?
The Interlocal Agreement specifies (at IV.D) that “TEES shall retain ownership of all data collected during this Agreement but shall share that data with the City at no cost to the City, upon request.” There is recognition (at I) that “These applications could generate opportunities for enhancing multi-agency coordination,” but goes on to say “The Parties understand that the resources available from the City under this agreement are limited to the Austin Fire Department.” The Agreement is silent on the resources that CRASAR may choose to make available to other City agencies. And while the Agreement emphasizes that UAVs are the primary robotics of interest, there is no restriction on exploring use of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) or other robotic platforms. During the Council work session, Assistant Chief Davis explicitly mentioned the potential of unmanned maritime vehicles to assist during flood events.
In early January of this year, as the Texas state legislature inaugurated its 83rd biennial session, EFF-Austin connected with a group of citizen activists concerned about the hidden exchange of information between telecommunications companies and law enforcement agencies. Together with the ACLU of Texas, Texans for Accountable Government, and the widely read and respected criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast, we formed a new organization—the Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition—to initiate a targeted campaign to update Texas state law to better protect citizen privacy in the digital age.
If you own a mobile phone, you have signed a contract which includes a clause permitting your telecom provider to share your subscriber information (text messages and email) as well as information about your phone’s physical location (your whereabouts and movements) with law enforcement agencies should they legally request it. This information is typically requested through an administrative subpoena, which does not require demonstration of probable cause to a judge, and is typically sealed so no one ever hears about it. EFF-Austin is concerned about the lack of judicial oversight for this process and the lack of transparency into or accountability for this law enforcement surveillance tactic.
Just how much is this tactic used? Thanks to a Congressional privacy probe initiated by Representative Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), we know that cell phone carriers serviced roughly 1.3 million requests for subscriber information in 2011 from state and federal law enforcement agencies.
To inform our perspective, the Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition (TxEPC) has initiated an open records campaign throughout the state of Texas to gather invoices issued to law enforcement agencies for services rendered by telecommunication providers. That’s another little wrinkle in this surveillance tactic: the telecom providers must be compensated for the expenditure of resources and staff time exhausted providing law enforcement access to subscriber information, even going so far as to build private web portals to receive and process all of the requests. From what we’ve learned, a law enforcement officer has to send an email to their District Attorney to acquire a subpoena, then login to a telecom web portal, type in the target number and attach a subpoena. That’s pretty darned easy and shows we’re a far cry from the days when a wiretap required actual physical exertion of effort and time to acquire much less information.
To add insult to injury—as if your cell phone bill weren’t outrageous enough already—taxpayer dollars are shoveled over to telecom providers…to conduct surveillance on taxpayers.
However, there is a silver lining to that ominous funnel cloud, as this means the invoices issued by telecom companies are public records and thus subject to required disclosure thanks to the enlightened open records laws of the great state of Texas. So the TxEPC open records campaign has been generating quantitative data by poring over public information – such as this sample of invoices obtained from the Fort Worth Police Department.
Not only does this begin to tell us how much public money is spent on this surveillance tactic (a figure which no one currently knows, not even the Governor) but it also gives us insight into whether particular law enforcement agencies are going above and beyond current state law by requiring their staff to obtain search warrants. TxEPC sincerely hopes we discover law enforcement agencies which are doing a good job, as that would reflect the ACLU’s nuanced findings across the country. If you are a member of one of those agencies, we’d like to hear from you and celebrate your ethical wisdom and moral compass.
Simultaneous with and informed by our open records campaign, the Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition has composed a bill which minimally modifies the Texas state code to ensure better protection of citizen privacy in the digital age. Thanks to Representative Bryan Hughes and Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, legislation has been filed in both chambers to require a search warrant when law enforcement goes to your cell phone company for your comprehensive location data.
require a warrant for cell phone location information, whether law enforcement is tracking your phone in realtime or checking in on where you’ve been
for tracking devices installed by police, limit the amount of time a tracking order can be sealed by a judge (kept secret) to one year
require aggregate reporting on the amount of location tracking that’s happening out there, and whether all this surveillance is actually resulting in the capture and conviction of criminals.
According to AT&T’s letter to Congressman Ed Markey last summer (PDF), “When the law requires a warrant for disclosure of customer phone usage information, AT&T requires that a warrant be provided.” Texas law, which hasn’t been updated for the smartphone era, is silent on the process for getting location information. These bills will end that silence.
EFF-Austin would like to thank the lawmakers who have taken this on, as well as all the other Representatives who’ve already told us they want to support our effort. We’re a long way from final passage, but we are well-positioned and the time is right. To turn these bills into law, it will take the combined efforts of all the groups who have thus far joined EFF-Austin in the Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition (we’d love to hear from your organization if you’d like to join). As well, our elected officials will need to hear from their constituents, so passage of these bills will also take grassroots support from Texans everywhere.
Toward that end, EFF-Austin has begun transforming into a member-oriented, grassroots organization. If you would like to join us on this adventure—and the many more yet to come—please join our new mailing list. At the same time, you can opt-in to volunteer with us (we’re all volunteers here) and indicate what you’d like to help out on. We can definitely use your help wrangling open records requests, planning events, fundraising, educating elected officials, building websites, and fighting the good fight!
Want to meet us in person? We’re hosting a non-badge SXSWi event in coordination with national EFF and iSEC Partners next Saturday March 9th from 4-6pm at Capital Factory. TxEPC will take the stage to talk about our legislative push, drum up support, and ask for your financial help. We’ll have cool “Geek Activist” t-shirts, coffee mugs, stickers, and buttons which we give away as gifts at certain donation levels. Registration is required and space is limited, so sign up and come meet as many privacy activists, civic hackers, and concerned citizens as we can fit in the place. https://www.eff.org/sxsw13party
If you’d like to follow the Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition, we’re just getting our online presence off the ground (did I mention we could use some coders and designers?). For your reference, here’s where we’re at: http://txepc.org/ http://twitter.com/txepc
And in case you were wondering, that’s pronounced “Tex-EPIC” y’all! See you in the halls of the state legislature!
Representatives from private industry and the US federal government has already made a discreet presentation to college students in Austin Texas this spring where the concept of a series of “National Identity Management Centers” aka “The Center For Identity” was introduced to students.
I have wondered WHY this presentation was made on a college campus to college students, most of whom are gullible and many are still innocent to the beguiling tactics of surreptitiously introduced socialism and mass population surveillance programs by the federal government. Restated: most college kids do not understand what “social engineering” means, or “mass indoctrination by media gradualism.”
Until just recently if you were to try to explain these mind control methods to college kids they would hop on their skateboards and laugh it off. But that en mass naivete is now changing. “The Center For Identity” on the University of Texas at Austin has already been planned and now has a web presence.
A close friend, college aged, and a student in Austin, who attended this presentation told me later the entire ambiance of the material was creepy, hard to understand and altogether very ambiguous.
Just exactly WHAT is a “national identity management center’? I examined the literature which was handed out at this presentation and it was all cloaked in well familiar magnanimous federal platitudes about ‘personal identity security” and so forth. There was even a letter included from President Obama. The specific term “RFID” was not referenced in the literature, but I had the very distinct feeling that once these federally staffed “national identity management centers” become operative, that RFID, Iris scans, facial recognition, DNA scans and a host of other high technology personal identification methods will be deployed through the centers. There is a partnership forming between high level corporations and the federal government to establish these “national identity management centers” for profit. That was made very clear in the documents that I examined. I have posted some of these documents at the end of this report.