-Caveat Lector- Weekly Update for 7/26/01 COALITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES Volume 5, Number 18 Brought to you by the Center for Technology Policy of the Free Congress Foundation Lisa S. Dean, Director, Center for Technology Policy (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ) J. Bradley Jansen, Deputy Director, Center for Technology Policy (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ) Hannah H. Woody, Coalition Coordinator (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ) phone: (202) 546-3000 fax: (202) 544-2819 http://www.FreeCongress.org <http://www.FreeCongress.org> THIS WEEK: * INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR CORPORATE WELFARE? By J. Bradley Jansen, Deputy Director, Center of Technology Policy, Free Congress Foundation The Free Congress Commentary, From the "Endangered Liberties" Television Program www.freecongress.org/press/offpress/010723.BJfcc.htm <http://www.freecongress.org/press/offpress/010723.BJfcc.htm> * DEAN: COLORADO SHOWS CITIZENS PROTECTING THEIR PRIVACY WORKS Press Release, Free Congress Foundation, July 19, 2001 www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010719.htm <http://www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010724.htm> * JANSEN: OUR CURRENCY SHOULD NOT CARRY TRACKING CHIPS Press Release, Free Congress Foundation, July 23, 2001 www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010724.htm <http://www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010724.htm> * GOVERNMENT HAS ITS EYE ON YOUR MONEY By Robyn E. Blumner, St. Petersburg Times, July 22, 2001 http://www.sptimes.com/News/072201/Columns/Government_has_its_ey.shtml <http://www.sptimes.com/News/072201/Columns/Government_has_its_ey.shtml> * CITY COUNCIL DEADLOCKS ON FACE SCANNING By Geoff Dutton, The Tampa Tribune, July 20, 2001 http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAJW6WCDPC.html <http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAJW6WCDPC.html> * JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GETS A 'PRIVACY CZAR' By Jerry Seper, Washington Times, July 25, 2001 http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20010725-23 <http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20010725-2 3> * HOUSE PLACES REPORTING REQUIREMENT ON CYBERSNOOPING SYSTEM The Office of the House Majority Leader, July 23, 2001 http://www.freedom.gov/library/technology/carnivorereport.asp <http://www.freedom.gov/library/technology/carnivorereport.asp> * DISTRICT GETS OK ON RED LIGHT CAMERAS By Daniel F. Drummond, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 25, 2001 http://washtimes.com/metro/20010725-91340800.htm <http://washtimes.com/metro/20010725-91340800.htm> * CHASING THE RUNAWAY TAX SLAVES By Paul Craig Roberts, The Washington Times, July 25, 2001 http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/roberts.htm <http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/roberts.htm> INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR CORPORATE WELFARE? By J. Bradley Jansen, Deputy Director, Center of Technology Policy, Free Congress Foundation The Free Congress Commentary, From the "Endangered Liberties" Television Program www.freecongress.org/press/offpress/010723.BJfcc.htm <http://www.freecongress.org/press/offpress/010723.BJfcc.htm> President Bush recently proposed some changes at the World Bank. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have come under severe criticism. There is a broad consensus among conservatives, libertarians and progressives that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. The Bush administration is filled with Bretton Woods skeptics. Economic advisor Larry Lindsey vocally opposed the latest quota increase for the IMF. Kenneth Dam, the number two man at the Treasury Department behind Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote in a 1998 book with former secretary of State George Shultz, that the bailouts mainly benefited wealthy investors and said that the interventionist policies only makes things worse. "They can say to themselves, 'Heads I win, tails you lose,'" Dam and Shultz wrote. John Taylor, a former economics professor at Stanford University, is Treasury's undersecretary for international affairs.. He has even advocated abolishing the IMF. He agrees with Dam that bailout actions serve to prop up reckless investing. No one confuses the Bush team as apologists of the left on this issue. However, many on the left are critical of the IMF and the World Bank too. "It was the IMF that assembled the high-profile multibillion dollar rescue packages that were meant to rescue foreign creditors even as local banks, finance companies, and corporations were told to bite the bullet by accepting bankruptcy," argues Walden Bello, ["Is Bush Bad News for the World Bank?," Focus on the Global South, January 2001]. It was after all mostly young progressives protesting in the streets against the IMF and World Bank. Their anger was mostly fueled by a coalition of progressives that came together in 50 Years is Enough: the Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A less pedestrian criticism came from the Meltzer Commission in February of 2000. It reported that 80 per cent of World Bank resources are devoted not to the poorest developing countries but to the better off ones that have positive credit ratings, which would enable them to raise money in the international capital markets. The failure rate of World Bank projects is nearly 70 per cent in the poorest countries and about 60 per cent in all developing countries. The World Bank does not ameliorate global poverty which is its avowed. The Meltzer Commission's work stands on sound footing: The Cato Institute's Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World documents the failure of these institutions to help the world's poor. Before Karin Lissakers became the Clinton Administration's delegate to the IMF, she authored a damning critic of how the international financial elite used the IMF and World Bank for their own purposes. Her book Banks, Borrowers, and the Establishment: A Revisionist Account of the International Debt Crisis refers to the IMF a 20th Century version of gunboat diplomacy. Many scholars have shown the failures of the IMF and World Bank policies. One Federal Reserve paper ["Why Intervention Rarely Works," by Owen F. Humpage and William P. Osterberg, Economic Commentary, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, February 1, 2000] explains that intervention in monetary policy distorts the price signals of the market. These false signals then give bad information to businessmen who must make economic decisions. The central premise of is that central bankers, much like all other central planners, do not routinely possess better information than the market. Acting as if they do only makes things worse. Both sides can unite behind one agenda at this point: the radical downsizing, if not dismantling, of the Bretton Woods twins, believes Walden Bello. I agree. DEAN: COLORADO SHOWS CITIZENS PROTECTING THEIR PRIVACY WORKS Press Release, Free Congress Foundation, July 19, 2001 www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010719.htm <http://www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010724.htm> Center for Technology Policy director Lisa Dean credited Colorado Gov. Bill Owens' with making a step in the right direction by deciding to stall implementation of facial recognition software until the state legislature establishes clearer guidelines regarding its use. "It's refreshing to see elected officials responding to public sentiment. It's also critical that citizens who are concerned enough about taking action to protect their privacy do send a strong message to their leaders," said Dean. Owens signed into law last month a bill that would allow the state's Department of Motor Vehicles to purchase a sophisticated facial recognition software system as a way to stop identity theft. Although the bill passed without opposition in both houses of the legislature, Owens' office received 25 calls and e-mails expressing concern that its wording would allow the sophisticated software to be used by federal, state, and local governments to perform "official functions." Owens explained his decision to delay implementing the system until clearer guidelines are established by stressing his desire to "balance" the concerns of law enforcement with "the public's right to privacy." The Governor made clear that he did not want the technology to be used for "generic fishing expeditions." Dean expressed hope that privacy activists in other cities considering the use of facial recognition software will be as vigilant in protecting their privacy. "Let's hope this kind of public pressure continues in cities across the United States. We cannot rely on the courts or legislatures to protect citizens' privacy any longer. These branches of government have already demonstrated their lack of concern for citizens' rights and, if they are to be protected, the responsibility for upholding those rights falls on citizens themselves." she said. Tampa is currently the only city in the country that uses facial recognition software, having installed thirty cameras on the streets of a downtown entertainment district. Citizens recently protested the system by donning masks that obscured their faces. The police force of Virginia Beach, Virginia is waiting to hear about the status of a grant to help cover the purchase of a similar system. JANSEN: OUR CURRENCY SHOULD NOT CARRY TRACKING CHIPS Press Release, Free Congress Foundation, July 23, 2001 www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010724.htm <http://www.freecongress.org/press/releases/010724.htm> Center for Technology deputy director J. Bradley Jansen wants tomorrow's congressional hearing on the "design and security" of U.S. currency to recognize privacy concerns when considering the implementation of new technologies. New technology designed to stop counterfeiting could easily be converted to purposes that intrude upon the privacy of law-abiding citizens. "It is important that the adoption of new technologies to thwart counterfeiting and to increase security are not used as government surveillance programs," Jansen wants to make clear to members of the Subcommittee on Domestic and Monetary Policy, Technology and Economic Growth which will hold its hearing this Tuesday. There are two good reasons to be concerned about government monitoring of currency. A new device called the Mew Chip is small enough that it could be easily implanted in money for security purposes. It is designed to stop counterfeiting but, in the process, it can also be used as a surveillance method to track consumers' spending habits as well. The chip is expected to be available for mass distribution by next year. Also, bureaucrats at home and abroad have expressed interest in expanding their power in ways that could easily trample over our liberties. Two years ago, an official at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, proposed the use of a tracking device on currency that would automatically reduce its value to discourage "hoarding." At the time, the idea generated a backlash from prominent elected officials and academicians. Bureaucrats representing multilateral governing bodies such as the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have also been pushing for more regulatory powers too. "With multilateral bureaucrats seeking more of our personal information to stop tax evasion and money laundering, we must be careful not to invade our privacy or we risk the dollar's standard as a world reserve currency," Jansen emphasizes. GOVERNMENT HAS ITS EYE ON YOUR MONEY By Robyn E. Blumner, St. Petersburg Times, July 22, 2001 http://www.sptimes.com/News/072201/Columns/Government_has_its_ey.shtml <http://www.sptimes.com/News/072201/Columns/Government_has_its_ey.shtml> Our government hates money. Now that might sound odd since Congress is so very good at spending it, but the truth is money is considered a drug-war enemy. The ease with which money moves without our government being able to track it has led to an elaborate set of rules designed to prevent narcotics smugglers from enjoying their illicit profits. But the consequence of these rules is that all of us who engage in financial transactions are now targets of government spying. Today, every bank customer is a suspect. If a financial institution has reason to believe a transaction is out of the ordinary for that person, it must submit a "suspicious activity report" to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. This is done without the customer's knowledge, and it means banks are expected to know their customers' financial habits and revenue sources. (For those who have been following these issues, this might sound like the "Know Your Customer" regulations that were defeated in 1999 when the government received more than 300,000 negative public comments. While the regulations were withdrawn, the suspicious-activity-report program continues under the Bank Secrecy Act.) Since 1997 the U.S. Postal Service has also been sending "suspicious activity reports" to the federal government. When customers of money orders and wire transfers seem to have more money than they should or if they seem to be avoiding the reporting requirements that kick in for money orders of $3,000 or more, a report must be filed. In a training video on how to identify a suspicious transaction, the postal service tells its employees, "It's better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal transaction get by." The program is called "Under the Eagle's Eye," a name that says it all. But getting American banks and the postal service to rat out their mostly innocent customers was the easy part. It's getting the rest of the world to join in that's been the challenge. If you want a reason to join the black-helicopter set, read the reports put out by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, the 29-nation task force that includes the United States, Germany, Japan and the rest of the world's richest industrial nations. The task force has developed a set of 40 "recommendations" to combat international money laundering that read like the postal services' training video. Under the recommendations, all countries around the world are expected to force their banks to know their customers and their financial habits. Banks are also expected to submit "suspicious activity reports" on out-of-the-ordinary and large cash transactions, and keep the monitoring program secret from their customers. Sound familiar? According to Bradley Jansen of the Free Congress Foundation, the group that has been leading the battle against these incursions, "countries are also supposed to set up foreign intelligence units that are not under the control of the government's financial regulators but under law enforcement, with the aim of setting up a global network of unaccountable financial police." In June, FATF issued its annual report of "blacklisted" countries -- those nations that have made insufficient progress in following FATF's recommendations. This year Russia and the Philippines made the list, as well as 13 other nations. Those that make the blacklist are subject to full-blown economic sanctions, something our government is loath to do, or advisories issued to our own banks to require detailed documentation before doing business there, an approach that relies on voluntary cooperation to limited effect. But for the past two Congresses, a bill has been introduced to give the secretary of the Treasury vast new unilateral powers to add teeth to FATF's blacklist. The International Counter-Money Laundering and Anti-Corruption Act would give the Treasury secretary the option of barring U.S. banks from doing business with nations that refuse to compromise the privacy of their bank customers. And now the legislation has renewed life, since the chairmanship of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee has shifted from Republican Phil Gramm of Texas, an opponent of the measure, to Paul Sarbanes, D-M.D., a supporter and co-sponsor. The United States is saying to other nations: Spy on your people, know how they get and use their money or you can forget about doing business with us. So much for our tradition of government restraint, where the actions of individuals are not subject to state scrutiny without probable cause. We might pride ourselves as being a beacon of liberty, but in reality the light we're shining is not to advance freedom but to invade privacy. Our anti-money laundering efforts are just another way we have exported our drug war to the detriment of civil liberties around the world. CITY COUNCIL DEADLOCKS ON FACE SCANNING By Geoff Dutton, The Tampa Tribune, July 20, 2001 http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAJW6WCDPC.html <http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAJW6WCDPC.html> TAMPA - Confronted by angry protesters, city council members deadlocked Thursday on whether they will continue to support the police department's use of face-scanning surveillance cameras. Three council members supported and three opposed pulling the plug on the Tampa Police Department's new computer program, which digitizes the faces of people strolling through Ybor City and electronically compares their mugs to those of wanted felons. They debated the accuracy and ethics of subjecting unsuspecting passers-by to a digital lineup. Whatever stance the council takes, a top aide to Mayor Dick Greco said, the administration wholeheartedly supports the experimental crime- fighting tool. Fernando Noriega, the mayor's administrator of development, brushed aside critics who warned of international backlash from newspaper headlines and TV stories popping up around the world. ``I'm really not interested in what they think about us internationally, or in Cleveland,'' Noriega said. ``I'm concerned about the safety of the people in Ybor City.'' FaceIt relies on surveillance cameras installed several years ago in Ybor City. Police zoom in on faces in the crowd, and the computer compares the electronic images to a database of mug shots of wanted criminals. A police officer operates the system from a control room Thursday through Saturday nights and during special events. So far there have been four computer matches, all of which police determined to be false even before approaching the people on the street. Tampa is the first U.S. police department to use the technology. ``I think we've gone too far,'' Councilwoman Rose Ferlita said. ``I think it's very, very intrusive.'' Councilman Bob Buckhorn said police officers already are told to keep a lookout for fugitives when they start their shifts. The computer helps them do a better job of it. ``This is all just a first step toward an Orwellian surveillance society,'' Michael Pheneger, the secretary of Florida's American Civil Liberties Union, told council members. ``I think it's an embarrassment,'' Tampa resident May Becker said. ``I feel very victimized.'' Others said it is ridiculous to have expectations of privacy while walking down the street in Ybor City, an entertainment district that draws as many as 20,000 people on Saturday nights. The cameras and face-scanning give a heightened sense of security that outweighs privacy concerns, proponents said. ``What happened to the society where big brother watched little brother? What happened to the society where neighbors watched out for neighbors?'' Sulphur Springs resident Cynthia Jines said. ``We need to make Tampa a safer place.'' Full article: http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAJW6WCDPC.html <http://tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGAJW6WCDPC.html> Concurring articles: GRECO SAYS YBOR CITY CAMERAS WILL STAY http://www.tampatrib.com/MGAVF7SIKPC.html <http://www.tampatrib.com/MGAVF7SIKPC.html> ARGUMENTS, PRO AND CON, ON YBOR CITY SPY IN THE SKY http://www.sptimes.com/News/072001/Columns/Arguments__pro_and_co.shtml <http://www.sptimes.com/News/072001/Columns/Arguments__pro_and_co.shtml> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GETS A 'PRIVACY CZAR' By Jerry Seper, Washington Times, July 25, 2001 http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20010725-23 <http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20010725-2 3> Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday named a privacy czar to monitor the privacy implications of technologies used by law enforcement agencies in the pursuit of crime, including the FBI cyberprogram known as 'Carnivore.' The Justice Department's new chief privacy officer is Associate Deputy Attorney General Daniel P. Collins. ... In addition to monitoring privacy issues involving law enforcement, Mr. Collins will oversee the department's compliance with laws protecting the privacy of the information it acquires in the course of its operations and its responsibility to enforce existing laws protecting personal privacy. He will consider proposed legislation or regulations to address privacy issues. Mr. Ashcroft directed Mr. Collins to conduct a review of the Carnivore system, now known as DCS1000, which the FBI has described as an essential crime-fighting tool, and to make specific recommendations for any necessary modifications. ... The appointment of a privacy czar was discussed in a closed-door meeting at the Justice Department earlier this year between Mr. Ashcroft and privacy advocates, who have expressed concern over the DCS1000 program. ... Previously, Mr. Collins worked as a partner at the Los Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. From 1997 to 1998, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. From 1992 to 1996, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, where he prosecuted more than 60 federal cases." HOUSE PLACES REPORTING REQUIREMENT ON CYBERSNOOPING SYSTEM The Office of the House Majority Leader, July 23, 2001 http://www.freedom.gov/library/technology/carnivorereport.asp <http://www.freedom.gov/library/technology/carnivorereport.asp> House Majority Leader Dick Armey lauded today's passage of legislation that will bring accountability to the Internet cybersnooping system formerly known as Carnivore. "I'm pleased that Attorney General Ashcroft is performing a thorough legal review of Carnivore," said Armey. "But I'm even more pleased that today's legislation will provide additional accountability." H.R. 2215 <http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/bills/107/1/bill.asp?bill=hr2215> , the Department of Justice (DOJ) reauthorization bill passed in the House today. The bill includes a committee amendment authored by Rep. Bob Barr requiring the Attorney General and FBI Director to provide Congress with a detailed report on all uses of Carnivore. The report must document the exact circumstances of the system's use, including the statutory authority upon which the Department relied. In response to the privacy concerns raised by Carnivore, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently appointed a senior DOJ official, Daniel P. Collins, to examine the legal problems associated with the system. Collins is a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. "Although this is not the end of the story, these are two steps in the right direction," said Armey. Carnivore is device that gives the FBI the capability of sorting through all of the electronic communications that pass through a commercial Internet service provider to which it is attached. A year ago, thirty-two Members of Congress joined in a letter to former Attorney General Janet Reno </library/technology/carnletter.asp> asking her to suspend use of the system. A copy of the Carnivore reporting language appears below: SEC. 306. REPORT ON DCS 1000 (`CARNIVORE'). Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate a report detailing-- 1. the number of times DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device) was used for surveillance during the preceding fiscal year; 2. the Department of Justice official or officials who approved each use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 3. the criteria used by the Department of Justice officials to review requests to use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 4. a complete description of the process used to submit, review, and approve requests to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 5. the specific statutory authority relied on to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 6. the court that authorized each use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 7. the number of orders, warrants, or subpoenas applied for, to authorize the use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 8. the fact that the order, warrant, or subpoena was granted as applied for, was modified, or was denied; 9. the offense specified in the order, warrant, subpoena, or application; and 10. the nature of the facilities from which, or the place where the contents of, electronic communications were to be disclosed; and 11. any information gathered or accessed that was not authorized by the court to be gathered or accessed. DISTRICT GETS OK ON RED LIGHT CAMERAS By Daniel F. Drummond, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 25, 2001 http://washtimes.com/metro/20010725-91340800.htm <http://washtimes.com/metro/20010725-91340800.htm> Congress has approved the District's request to use $800,000 for its new photo radar cameras -- designed to catch speeders electronically. But House Majority Leader Dick Armey decries the congressional support of the program. The speed camera program is expected to officially begin Aug. 1 and for the District to move forward, it had to get congressional approval for the money it expects to spend to implement the plan. It got that support -- and the authorization to use the money -- last week after the House passed the final version of a military supplemental appropriations bill that goes until Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. The Senate also has already given the go-ahead to the stopgap spending measure bill, and President Bush is expected to sign it. But a spokesman for Mr. Armey, Texas Republican, said the federal government has no business encouraging the use of the cameras, especially in the nation's capital. "We shouldn't have Congress endorse this kind of system," Armey spokesman Richard Diamond said. "It's not good for the federal government to be involved in promoting devices that undermine citizens' privacy rights, especially the right to face one's accuser." Full article: http://washtimes.com/metro/20010725-91340800.htm <http://washtimes.com/metro/20010725-91340800.htm> CHASING THE RUNAWAY TAX SLAVES By Paul Craig Roberts, The Washington Times, July 25, 2001 http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/roberts.htm <http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/roberts.htm> In case you didn't know, the U.S. Senate has a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Last week Michigan Democrat Carl Levin summoned Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to appear before the committee. Mr. Levin demanded that Mr. O'Neill explain himself for opposing the OECD's plan to capture runaway tax slaves. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (30 industrialized countries) has identified 36 "tax havens" (small countries mainly in the Caribbean) that provide financial privacy. Prosecutors maintain that these havens facilitate tax evasion and also enable criminals to launder their illicit profits. Mr. Levin accused Mr. O'Neill of protecting tax evaders and criminals by opposing the OECD. Promptly put on the defensive, as Republicans always are when interrogated by Democrats, Mr. O'Neill promised to crack down on tax evasion. He would achieve this, he said, through tax treaties with offshore havens and not through OECD coercion. Mr. O'Neill missed his chance to refocus the hearing from "tax cheats" to much more important issues: civil liberties, the right to privacy, and national sovereignty. Mr. O'Neill could have begun by pointing out that "tax haven" is a loaded term designed to put financial privacy in a bad light. If critics of "tax havens" were forthright, they would use the term "privacy havens." Critics object to privacy, because they want the right to troll bank accounts and security holdings for large accounts that might reflect income from criminal activity such as narcotics. No doubt privacy aids and abets criminals. But privacy has many positive functions as well, and these functions should not be abolished just in order to better chase after criminals. For example, financial privacy gives voice to many people who live in political jurisdictions where dissent is risky and where wealth is confiscated. (Asset forfeiture laws are making even the U.S. such a place.) Would political dissidents be as bold if the governments they oppose had a handle on the location of their financial assets? In many countries (Columbia and Brazil, for example) financial privacy is necessary to protect people and family members from becoming targets for kidnappers. In countries with corrupt governments, low-paid government bureaucrats sell the identities of wealthy people to kidnappers. In the U.S., the Fourth Amendment restricts search and seizure. Police are not allowed indiscriminate search powers in order to troll for criminals. Individuals can be searched only with probable cause and warrants. Requiring Americans to report their foreign bank accounts to the Internal Revenue Service constitutes blanket, warrantless search that violates the U.S. Constitution. There are many legitimate functions of financial privacy. Mr. Levin and the OECD should not be permitted to get away with arguing that privacy serves only money launderers and tax evaders. Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney who sees conspiracy in every bank, told Mr. Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that "tax havens" threaten the integrity of the U.S. tax system. He says $70 billion in tax revenues are lost because of offshore havens. This is small potatoes. $200 billion are lost to domestic evasion by underreporting income. Far more is lost to high tax rates that discourage people from earning taxable income. Secretary O'Neill would raise more revenues by replacing Treasury's static revenue estimates with dynamic estimates than by chasing after tax cheats. Mr. O'Neill should have asked the Investigations Subcommittee, "Why do people cheat on their taxes?" They cheat for the same reasons slaves ran away. They believe the system is unfair and exploits their work. By closing down "tax havens," the OECD wants to recapture runaway tax slaves from Europe's high taxes. Carl Levin wants to aid the OECD by embarrassing the U.S. Treasury secretary who spoke against OECD coercion of small countries that provide financial privacy. There is no difference between an income tax and slavery. A slave does not own the fruits of his labor, and neither does anyone who is subject to income tax. Sen. Carl Levin and the OECD bureaucrats are trying to round up the runaway tax slaves and send them back to their masters. Other pertinent privacy articles regarding previous and new privacy issues: DENMARK ENACTS ANTI-PIRACY SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/26/042210 <http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/26/042210> If you needed further proof of the U.S. software industry's global muscle, keep reading. The U.S. government, acting on behalf of American firms, has successfully pressured Denmark to change its laws. A document unearthed by Cluebot.com describes how the new law allows physical searches for supposed copyright infringements "without prior notification." PRIVACY: AN EMERGING FRONT-BURNER ISSUE http://www.conservative.org/columnists/keene07112001.htm <http://www.conservative.org/columnists/keene07112001.htm> Recent polls reflect growing public concern over an issue that neither party seems willing to tackle in anything approaching a serious way, though I suspect all that is lacking is a catalytic event to make a front-burner political issue. The issue is privacy. Americans revel in the advantages of computers and the ability to find out just about anything "online," but they are growing more and more nervous by the day about the fact that their secrets might be as accessible to others as the information they seek is to them. THE SHOCKING MENACE OF SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html <http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/14/10131.html> HOUSE PASSES BILL TO CREATE NEW MONITOR FOR THE F.B.I. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/24/politics/24FBI.html?ex=996997968&ei=1&en=6 8eab9cdc94dda75 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/24/politics/24FBI.html?ex=996997968&ei=1&en= 68eab9cdc94dda75> ELECTRONIC CHECK TAPS A PROFILE http://denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,141%257E74622,00.html <http://denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,141%257E74622,00.html> PRIVACY GROUP TAKES ISSUE WITH MICROSOFT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/25/technology/25COMP.html?ex=997114207&ei=1&e n=30e109aadf94cba7 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/25/technology/25COMP.html?ex=997114207&ei=1&; en=30e109aadf94cba7> BRITISH ARMY VOLUNTEERS TO BE MICROCHIPPED >From Biometrics Digest, July 25, 2001 In a trial believed to be a world first, a cross-section of soldiers have allowed themselves to be micro-chipped as part of a study into how new technology may be harnessed to revolutionize the bureaucracy of personal administration. All the troops involved in the project are volunteers. Impetus for phase one of the Army Personnel Rationalization Individual Listings project came from the acclaimed Passports for Pets scheme, from which much of the technology has been adapted. The trial, which began at the start of April, 2001, is to run for six months. Should it be the success which project managers anticipate, the whole of the Army could be micro-chipped by 2010. *******To subscribe or unsubscribe, for comments, concerns, and snide remarks, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> . <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
