Any American can be the target of covert surveillance.

By Doug Hagmann-

Having written a textbook on surveillance (Tactical Surveillance, ISBN 978-0-9796479-0-1) that has been used throughout law enforcement, for DHS training courses and at universities in their criminal justice programs, I understand its proper use and place in society and a legitimate tool for law enforcement. I originally wrote Tactical Surveillance after conducting over 8,000 separate assignments and performing over 40,000 man hours myself in both the criminal and civil venues. When people asked me how long it took me to write the book, my response was always the same: well over 20 years, as that’s how long I was performing surveillance operations at that time.

The text was based in large part on my field experience, and includes tactics that work and some that don’t. It also addresses the legal and moral aspects of surveillance, which are two distinctly different topics. Since its initial publication, in 2003, I received a lot of positive feedback from veteran investigators about this topic, as well as many examples of surveillance operatives crossing both legal and moral lines to a shocking extent. I have seen and heard legal testimony of surveillance operatives engaged in activities that would absolutely shock most people. That said, I understand its potential for abuse, or the “dark side” of investigators’ actions that cross boundaries into the cruel and absurd. When surveillance is used as a tool to intimidate, conducted beyond its legal parameters, or is used to entrap people into events in which they are forced to react, it should be a crime. Instead, it is often celebrated in many circles, including and especially by certain elements within the government.

My purpose for the writing the above is to provide the necessary context for what I’m about to disclose. A real-life, real-world situation that had it been effective, had the potential to irreparably damage the reputation and credibility of an individual.

Everyone needs to understand that YOU can be targets of the same type of scenario – a scenario that has the potential to marginalize one’s message through the destruction of the messenger’s reputation.

According to my source within the DHS, Mr. Jones was not only the subject of a covert surveillance, but the target of an over surveillance and a special operation that had it been successful, would have been used as a tool to intimidate, embarrass, and ultimately destroy the reputation of Mr. Jones “beyond rehabilitation.” It is necessary to understand those two words: beyond rehabilitation. This means that regardless of any attempted explanation by the victim of such an operation, it would be virtually impossible to explain or overcome the lasting visual image resulting from the set-up.

The reason I know it is possible is that I’ve personally seen it done more than once, including to one well-known celebrity whose only crime was to attempt to provide assistance as a good Samaritan to a young woman who appeared to be in physical distress.  Because that individual crossed the wrong person working in government, he was the victim of “Big Brother’s dirty tricks.”  He nearly lost his marriage, his family, his home and career. I observed the video after the fact, and was privy to the carefully crafted editing that was done and prepared to be released at just the right time to offset the threat he posed to a certain political cause. To the glee of those who performed this covert operation, it was very effective. In the end, though, it did not work as planned, and the footage never saw the light of day due to circumstances I cannot reveal.
However, the fact that this takes place should concern every American, and should cause everyone to question the legitimacy of what is featured in various news outlets and on internet web sites.

According to inside information I received about the case involving Mr. Jones, it was the intent of certain “elements” within our own government to make him appear to be dangerous or a danger to others. The consequences could have been far reaching and extend beyond the obvious. Based on information from my source, consistent with my own personal observations during nearly 30 years of performing surveillance, such practices are being used more frequently to sway public opinion against both the messages and messengers of causes they feel threaten their grip on power. The greater the cause and more effective the messenger, the greater the risk.
Today, we are witnessing a very aggressive public relations campaign to adversely impact the effectiveness of the messengers and thus, the message. This is particularly true in all aspects relating to anyone standing up for God-given freedom and rights enumerated by our Constitution. We are facing a formidable enemy within our own government, with a nearly bottomless bag of dirty tricks that include high (and low) tech surveillance,  who will stop at nothing to replace our rights with tyranny. http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/74

DOJ refuses to release GPS tracking memos.

Two key memos outlining the Justice Department’s views about when Americans can be surreptitiously tracked with GPS technology are being kept secret by the department despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU to force their release. The FBI’s general counsel discussed the existence of the two memos publicly last year, yet the Justice Department is refusing to release them without huge redactions. (You can see the heavily censored versions sent to the ACLU here and here, and our original FOIA request here.)

The Justice Department’s unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking—possibly for months at a time—or whether the government will first get a warrant. This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies—like the Justice Department’s secret opinions about the Patriot Act’s Section 215—that simply should not exist in a democratic society. Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?

That is why the two memos the ACLU seeks are so important. According to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann, the government has prepared two memos that outline the Justice Department’s conclusions regarding its obligations under Jones, and how they apply to a variety of location tracking methods and technologies. (Although we thought the memos had been authored by the FBI, the government’s has now clarified that they originate with the Justice Department.)

The first memo, dated February 2012, is titled “Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones to GPS Tracking Devices.” As Weissmann told a public audience last spring:

So the issues are…is [Jones] going to apply to boats? Is it going to apply to airplanes? Is it going to apply at the border? What’s it mean for the consent that’s given by an owner? What’s it mean for the consent if it’s given by the possessor?

Weissmann’s remarks (video here) raise the possibility that the government believes that the type of vehicle a person is in could impact his or her privacy rights. They also raise the question of whether the government is attaching GPS devices to people’s cars at the international border under more permissive rules.

The second memo, dated July 2012, is titled “Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones to Additional Investigative Techniques.” Weissmann explained:

The second memoranda is going to be about guidance about what this means for other types of techniques, beyond GPS, because there’s no reason to think that this is going to just end with GPS and some of that is going to be very much a judgment call.
 http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/justice-department-refuses-release-gps-tracking-memos