This link leads eventually to a law firm, so the usual caveats apply and this link is provided for information only. Take a look at the disclaimer on the SNAG page and assume that I am invoking the same limitations here.
No matter what the caveats, the new provisions they list did go into effect.
The new Pennsylvania Chapter 14 special education regulations became effective July 1, 2008, and we have summarized for parents the most relevant changes affecting children with disabilities.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Why Privacy is Important
Before we bog down in the "good people should be good custodians of private information" discussion of Morrisville's re-registration, let's consider why private information should remain private.
Take a look at the New York Times article below, citing the lame-duck Bush Administration's push to codify some of their excesses before being evicted in January 2009.
Imagine for just a minute that one of these nice people, who thought they were just being a good citizen, saw "something" that seemed to be not right. Before you could say, "Mrs Kravitz! What are you doing?", there's an FBI file folder with your name on it.
A good person, with good intentions, simply asked a question of the proper authorities, and the proverbial hell-bound road paving permanently tars and feathers an innocent person.
The accompanying editorial makes the case: "Opening the door to sweeping investigations of this kind would be an invitation to the government to spy on people based on their race, religion or political activities. Before Mr. Mukasey goes any further, Congress should insist that the guidelines be fully vetted, and it should make certain that they do not pose a further threat to Americans’ civil liberties."
There's some more discussion on this at slashdot.com. It's a brave new world, citizen, and resistance is futile.
Maybe we can spy on the special education families to "really" be sure that the kids need the help they receive at school. Maybe we can have school board members follow families around town to be sure that they "really" live in town. (Oops. My bad. That's already been done.)
Why shouldn't we want to know that the custodians of our information are definitively barred from unauthorized disclosure, with the appropriate penalties to apply if they fail in this? Imagine if the pharmacist at CVS mentioned openly to your neighbors that you're taking drug X for condition Y. There's laws governing that situation, and the Emperor and the Board of Selected Accomplices should similarly be held responsible for the responsible use of school data.
Are there any ACLU lawyers out there who would like some courtroom experience?
New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 20, 2008
WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.
The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.
Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.
The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Congress overhauled the federal wiretapping law in July, for instance, and President Bush issued an executive order this month ratifying new roles for intelligence agencies. Other pending changes would also authorize greater sharing of intelligence information with the local police, a major push in the last seven years.
The Justice Department is already expecting criticism over the F.B.I. guidelines. In an effort to pre-empt critics, Mr. Mukasey gave a speech last week in Portland, Ore., describing the unfinished plan as an effort to “integrate more completely and harmonize the standards that apply to the F.B.I.’s activities.” Differing standards, he said, have caused confusion for field agents.
Mr. Mukasey emphasized that the F.B.I. would still need a “valid purpose” for an investigation, and that it could not be “simply based on somebody’s race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights.”
Rather than expanding government power, he said, “this document clarifies the rules by which the F.B.I. conducts its intelligence mission.”
In 2002, John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, allowed F.B.I. agents to visit public sites like mosques or monitor Web sites in the course of national security investigations. The next year, Mr. Bush issued guidelines allowing officials to use ethnicity or race in “narrow” circumstances to detect a terrorist threat.
The Democratic senators said the draft plan appeared to allow the F.B.I. to go even further in collecting information on Americans connected to “foreign intelligence” without any factual predicate. They also said there appeared to be few constraints on how the information would be shared with other agencies.
Michael German, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and a former F.B.I. agent, said the plan appeared to open the door still further to the use of data-mining profiles in tracking terrorism.
“This seems to be based on the idea that the government can take a bunch of data and create a profile that can be used to identify future bad guys,” he said. “But that has not been demonstrated to be true anywhere else.”
The Justice Department said Wednesday that in light of requests from members of Congress for more information, Mr. Mukasey would agree not to sign the new guidelines before a Sept. 17 Congressional hearing.
---------------------------------
Editorial
A New Rush to Spy
Published: August 22, 2008
There is apparently no limit to the Bush administration’s desire to invade Americans’ privacy in the name of national security. According to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to give the F.B.I. broad new authority to investigate Americans — without any clear basis for suspicion that they are committing a crime.
Opening the door to sweeping investigations of this kind would be an invitation to the government to spy on people based on their race, religion or political activities. Before Mr. Mukasey goes any further, Congress should insist that the guidelines be fully vetted, and it should make certain that they do not pose a further threat to Americans’ civil liberties.
Mr. Mukasey has not revealed the new guidelines. But according to senators whose staff have been given limited briefings, the rules may also authorize the F.B.I. to use an array of problematic investigative techniques. Among these are pretext interviews, in which agents do not honestly represent themselves while questioning a subject’s neighbors and work colleagues.
Four Democratic Senators — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts — have written to Mr. Mukasey and urged him not to sign the guidelines until they are publicly announced and national security and civil liberties experts have had a chance to analyze them.
We concur, and we would add that there should be full Congressional hearings so Americans can learn what new powers the government intends to take on.
The F.B.I. has a long history of abusing its authority to spy on domestic groups, including civil rights and anti-war activists, and there is a real danger that the new rules would revive those dark days.
Clearly, the Bush administration cannot be trusted to get the balance between law enforcement and civil liberties right. It has repeatedly engaged in improper and illegal domestic spying — notably in the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.
The F.B.I. and the White House no doubt want to push the changes through before a new president is elected. There is no reason to rush to adopt rules that have such important civil liberties implications.
Take a look at the New York Times article below, citing the lame-duck Bush Administration's push to codify some of their excesses before being evicted in January 2009.
Imagine for just a minute that one of these nice people, who thought they were just being a good citizen, saw "something" that seemed to be not right. Before you could say, "Mrs Kravitz! What are you doing?", there's an FBI file folder with your name on it.
A good person, with good intentions, simply asked a question of the proper authorities, and the proverbial hell-bound road paving permanently tars and feathers an innocent person.
The accompanying editorial makes the case: "Opening the door to sweeping investigations of this kind would be an invitation to the government to spy on people based on their race, religion or political activities. Before Mr. Mukasey goes any further, Congress should insist that the guidelines be fully vetted, and it should make certain that they do not pose a further threat to Americans’ civil liberties."
There's some more discussion on this at slashdot.com. It's a brave new world, citizen, and resistance is futile.
Maybe we can spy on the special education families to "really" be sure that the kids need the help they receive at school. Maybe we can have school board members follow families around town to be sure that they "really" live in town. (Oops. My bad. That's already been done.)
Why shouldn't we want to know that the custodians of our information are definitively barred from unauthorized disclosure, with the appropriate penalties to apply if they fail in this? Imagine if the pharmacist at CVS mentioned openly to your neighbors that you're taking drug X for condition Y. There's laws governing that situation, and the Emperor and the Board of Selected Accomplices should similarly be held responsible for the responsible use of school data.
Are there any ACLU lawyers out there who would like some courtroom experience?
New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 20, 2008
WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.
The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.
Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.
The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Congress overhauled the federal wiretapping law in July, for instance, and President Bush issued an executive order this month ratifying new roles for intelligence agencies. Other pending changes would also authorize greater sharing of intelligence information with the local police, a major push in the last seven years.
The Justice Department is already expecting criticism over the F.B.I. guidelines. In an effort to pre-empt critics, Mr. Mukasey gave a speech last week in Portland, Ore., describing the unfinished plan as an effort to “integrate more completely and harmonize the standards that apply to the F.B.I.’s activities.” Differing standards, he said, have caused confusion for field agents.
Mr. Mukasey emphasized that the F.B.I. would still need a “valid purpose” for an investigation, and that it could not be “simply based on somebody’s race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights.”
Rather than expanding government power, he said, “this document clarifies the rules by which the F.B.I. conducts its intelligence mission.”
In 2002, John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, allowed F.B.I. agents to visit public sites like mosques or monitor Web sites in the course of national security investigations. The next year, Mr. Bush issued guidelines allowing officials to use ethnicity or race in “narrow” circumstances to detect a terrorist threat.
The Democratic senators said the draft plan appeared to allow the F.B.I. to go even further in collecting information on Americans connected to “foreign intelligence” without any factual predicate. They also said there appeared to be few constraints on how the information would be shared with other agencies.
Michael German, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and a former F.B.I. agent, said the plan appeared to open the door still further to the use of data-mining profiles in tracking terrorism.
“This seems to be based on the idea that the government can take a bunch of data and create a profile that can be used to identify future bad guys,” he said. “But that has not been demonstrated to be true anywhere else.”
The Justice Department said Wednesday that in light of requests from members of Congress for more information, Mr. Mukasey would agree not to sign the new guidelines before a Sept. 17 Congressional hearing.
---------------------------------
Editorial
A New Rush to Spy
Published: August 22, 2008
There is apparently no limit to the Bush administration’s desire to invade Americans’ privacy in the name of national security. According to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to give the F.B.I. broad new authority to investigate Americans — without any clear basis for suspicion that they are committing a crime.
Opening the door to sweeping investigations of this kind would be an invitation to the government to spy on people based on their race, religion or political activities. Before Mr. Mukasey goes any further, Congress should insist that the guidelines be fully vetted, and it should make certain that they do not pose a further threat to Americans’ civil liberties.
Mr. Mukasey has not revealed the new guidelines. But according to senators whose staff have been given limited briefings, the rules may also authorize the F.B.I. to use an array of problematic investigative techniques. Among these are pretext interviews, in which agents do not honestly represent themselves while questioning a subject’s neighbors and work colleagues.
Four Democratic Senators — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts — have written to Mr. Mukasey and urged him not to sign the guidelines until they are publicly announced and national security and civil liberties experts have had a chance to analyze them.
We concur, and we would add that there should be full Congressional hearings so Americans can learn what new powers the government intends to take on.
The F.B.I. has a long history of abusing its authority to spy on domestic groups, including civil rights and anti-war activists, and there is a real danger that the new rules would revive those dark days.
Clearly, the Bush administration cannot be trusted to get the balance between law enforcement and civil liberties right. It has repeatedly engaged in improper and illegal domestic spying — notably in the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.
The F.B.I. and the White House no doubt want to push the changes through before a new president is elected. There is no reason to rush to adopt rules that have such important civil liberties implications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)