Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

My Brother Has Great Readers

My brother the columnist has great readers. Or at least one great reader:

White House Briefing | News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration: White House Briefing reader J. Harley McIlrath of Grinnell, Iowa, e-mailed me yesterday some insightful questions about just one sentence of Bush’s speech.

In fact, his questions about that one sentence alone were more penetrating and important than any of the coverage I read of Bush’s whole speech this morning.

The sentence from Bush: “The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission.”

McIlrath wrote:

“1. Who are ‘the terrorists?’ He’s talking about Iraq. Are ‘the insurgents’ also ‘the terrorists?’ Has Bush ever defined just who ‘the terrorists’ are?

“2. What would constitute a ‘win’ for the terrorists? What do they want? Do we know? Has Bush ever asked himself what ‘the terrorists’ want and whether or not it’s reasonable? Tactics aside, what do they want? Don’t tell me ‘they hate freedom.’

“3. What constitutes ‘losing our nerve?’ Is it losing one’s nerve to pull resources back from an ineffectual approach and apply them to an approach that is more promising? How many times in WWII did we pull resources off one front to reinforce another?

“4. What is ‘the mission.’ Can we abandon a ‘mission’ that has never been defined? To quote George Harrison: If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.

“Imagine if the press corps took this one short sentence and forced Bush to define his terms.”

Posted in Dan Froomkin | 5 Comments

Black Helicopter Contingency Plans

Seth Edenbaum points us to Granite Shadow, an expose by the Washington Post’s William Arkin, inaugurating a very promising new blog, Early Warning. One the one hand, it’s obviously good to have the federal government do disaster planning. On the other hand, having an off-the-shelf plan in place for a military takeover is not one of your warm and fuzzy developments.

Early Warning by William M. Arkin – washingtonpost.com: Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military’s extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.

A spokesman at the Joint Force Headquarters-National Capital Region (JFHQ-NCR) confirmed the existence of Granite Shadow to me yesterday, but all he would say is that Granite Shadow is the unclassified name for a classified plan.

That classified plan, I believe, after extensive research and after making a couple of assumptions, is CONPLAN 0400, formally titled Counter-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 0400 is a long-standing contingency plan of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) that serves as the umbrella for military efforts to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It has extensively been updated and revised since 9/11.

Further, Granite Shadow posits domestic military operations, including intelligence collection and surveillance, unique rules of engagement regarding the use of lethal force, the use of experimental non-lethal weapons, and federal and military control of incident locations that are highly controversial and might border on the illegal.

My guess is that Power Geyser and CONPLAN 0300 refers to operations in support of a civil agency "lead"(most likely the Attorney General for a WMD attack) while Granite Shadow and CONPLAN 0400 lays out contingencies where the military is in the lead.  I’ll wait to be corrected by someone in the know.

Both plans seem to live behind a veil of extraordinary secrecy because military forces operating under them have already been given a series of ”special authorities” by the President and the secretary of defense. These special authorities include, presumably, military roles in civilian law enforcement and abrogation of State’s powers in a declared or perceived emergency.

This sort of contingency plan may have a place, indeed probably has a place, but only in the context of carefully crafted legislation which spells out the circumstances under which the emergency plan can be activated — and more importantly sets out the ways in which the emergency authority will end. (Was it really Robert Heinlein — and not someone more like or Machiavelli or de Tocqueville — who first said “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary emergency”?)

For the executive branch to draft secret plans for a military takeover of government, however laudable the motives and however extreme the circumstances for which they are intended, does not in the end best serve our long-term national interests.

Posted in National Security, Politics: Tinfoil | 4 Comments

Two Years Later

Two years later, I'm no more optimistic than I was when I wrote Rose Burawoy, Political Scientist. Less, rather.

Posted in Politics: US | 3 Comments

Bird Flu

Forget hurricanes. Forget global warming. For a good panic, consider Bird Flu.

Apparently it’s broken out of China and is now Epidemic in Indonesia. Or, at least, in the cautious language of bureaucrats “Indonesia could be on the brink of a bird flu epidemic if the virus continues to accelerate.” Normally when bureaucrats will go that far, it translates into something worse.

Having just had graphic proof that the US government cannot be trusted to protect us from the consequences of disaster, coupled with the fact that at present the US has no stockpiles of the relevant drugs — in part due to sloth, in part due to the speed at which this strain can mutate — some people are going all survivalist on us.

Take a look, for example, at Flu Pandemic Preparation. (And don’t forget your emergency gear.)

I’m not entirely sure I get the threat model here. Why do I need a month’s worth of food? Is the idea I hide in my house to avoid infection, or that everyone around me is sick and dying and the FEMA trucks don’t come?

On a slightly more positive note, there’s the FluWiki, “a new experiment in collaborative problem solving in public health” where presumably rather than work on self-directed survivalist, the objective is a community-centered response.

Meanwhile, I’m still scratching my head as to why I want to pack my brown rice in dry ice, which presumably will keep it cold in my very hot garage for only a very limited period. Does the CO2 have preservative qualities too? If I even knew where to get dry ice. Or 50 pound bags of rice, for that matter.

Posted in Science/Medicine | 4 Comments

National ID Forum Underway

MIT’s online forum on the Real ID Act is underway. In an attempt to stir a little controversy, I just posted the following under the title ‘Consensus and Controversy’, which I reprint here for those not following along. While you’re welcome to comment here too, I urge those interested to Join the Real ID forum discussion.


Here are a few propositions that I think might form a basis for
going forward in reasoned debate.  (I of course welcome debate on
the accuracy of these propositions as well as the conclusions that
might flow from them)

Base propositions:

1.  A national ID is not the magic bullet that will make the
country safe from terrorism.   Given the very poor controls
we have on birth certificates at home (not to mention the impossibility
of relying on the quality control foreign credentials) it at most it
creates a speedbump for foreign terrorists who will need to get phony
versions of the credentials used as the basis for issuing the US ID.

2.  A national ID system cannot secure our borders.

3.  A national ID system can, however, assist in making illegal
immigration more unpleasant for immigrants by, for example, making it
more difficult to employ them.   All other things being
equal, this should reduce the incentive for that part of illegal
immigration driven primarily by economic considerations.

4. More generally, a national ID system has some substantial
potential to be the cornerstone of a national fraud-prevention
system.   

5. A national ID system potentially creates new avenues for super-fraud and highly effective identity theft.

6. A national ID system potentially creates new avenues for
governmental dossier creation on all citizens who use the national
ID.  These opportunities exist even if the system is not misused,
and are greater if it is misused.  As Lee Tien put it“‘national ID’ is not a card, but an entire system of databases, information gathering activities, and human beings making fateful
judgments about individuals based on that overall system.”

7.  A National Research Council report (“Who Goes There —
Authentication Through the Lens of Privacy”) noted
this:

Finding 6.5: State-issued driver’s licenses are
a de facto nationwide identity system. They are widely accepted for
transactions that require a  form of government-issued photo
ID.

Real ID substantially increases the likelihood
that driver’s licenses will become a defacto national ID for an even
greater range of offline and online transactions.

8.  The extent to which we reap the costs and benefits listed
above is very sensitive to how the system is actually
implemented.   For example, a well-implemented biometric
identifier makes fraud and identity theft more difficult, but also
makes it more devastating when it happens since people become more
reliant on the ID’s security (and it is hard to grow a new retina).

Am I correct that the above propositions are (in the abstract)
uncontroversial, and the controversy is in fact about how big and how
likely the positive and negative effects are, and how they compare to
each other?

Or, as Dan Combs put it in his contribution,

1. REAlID done right = good

2. RealID done wrong = very bad

3. The bar is high for such a system to be good.

        We aren’t close yet!

I will add the following personal observations, which I suspect might be more controversial than the above:

I.  For any ID system to be implemented competently (let alone in a fashion that inspires trust) supervisory authority must be taken out of the hapless Department of Homeland Security.

II.  For Real ID to be implemented competently it must have
federal funding rather than being left to the states as an unfunded
mandate.

III.  Real ID driver’s licenses are likely to become a de facto
national ID — much more than current driver’s licenses — not just
because of the federal pressure driven by national security needs (or
rhetoric) but also because of commercial pressure from a variety of
industries.

IV. The ID must be transparent — end users must be able to read everything coded on the ID itself. 

V.  If we are going to have a real or de facto national ID
card, all citizens must have a right to review and correct information
held on them in both public and private dossiers linked to the ID.

(For more about what I think, see my paper, The Uneasy Case for National ID Cards.)

Posted in ID Cards and Identification, Talks & Conferences | 3 Comments

Annals of Uncommon Household Accidents

Today an elderly but sizable orange juice can — part of our hurricane supplies left over from yesteryear — exploded at 6:20am while we were rushing to get the kids ready for school.

This makes an impressive mess in the cupboard and all over the kitchen floor.

Posted in Personal | 1 Comment