POLICE STATE AMERICA: "American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat"

Preventive Policing

"In the post-9/11 environment, the public has expected law enforcement to adopt a proactive

posture in order to disrupt terrorist plots before an attack occurs. Investigative leads about

terrorist plots in the homeland may originate from foreign intelligence sources. But, for the most

part, information about homegrown plots is available only through domestic intelligence

activities. In order to proactively gather intelligence, law enforcement has adopted a preventive

policing approach that focuses not just on crime that has occurred, but on the possibility that a

crime may be committed in the future.

In this context, a major challenge for law enforcement is gauging how quickly and at what point

individuals move from radicalized beliefs to violence so that a terrorist plot can be detected and

disrupted. At the federal level, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) have implemented a forward-leaning approach with a revision to the Attorney

General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations.2 The revision, meant to streamline the FBI’s

investigations and make them more proactive, has at its heart a new investigative tool,

assessments. These allow for the investigation of individuals or groups without factual

predication. The new guidelines have, however, generated some controversy among civil

libertarians.

Also critical among the proactive approaches employed by law enforcement is the monitoring of

Internet and social networking sites. The USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) authorizes the FBI to

use National Security Letters to obtain a range of information including data pertaining to e-mail

and Internet use. It appears that U.S. law enforcement has effectively exploited the Internet—

which radicalizing individuals can mine for information and violent jihadists use while plotting—

in its pursuit of terrorists. A review of criminal complaints and indictments in terrorism cases

reveals that the FBI has exploited the Internet and/or e-mail communications to build cases

against defendants in at least 22 of the post-9/11 cases studied in this report. Although much is

said about terrorist use of the Internet for recruitment, training, and communications, these cases

suggest that terrorists and aspiring terrorists will not find the Internet to be a uniformly

permissive environment."

Facebook warrents by leo

http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-warrants-by-law-enforcement-agencies-surge-2011-07

Requests for warrants to investigate the Facebook
accounts of known suspects is surging.
The U.S . Federal Bureau of Investigation , Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, Drug Enforcement
Administration and other such agencies often
gain access to the social networking accounts with the
user’ s knowledge.
The cases typically range from acts of terrorism , to
rape and even arson. Law enforcement will generally
scour the accounts, delving into everything from
friend’ s lists, calendars, events, posting updates, links,
videos, photos and will even look back at rejected
friend requests. Under U.S . laws , neither Facebook
nor the government has to inform a user when an
account is being searched by law officials.
According to Reuters, at least two dozen warrants
have been granted by federal judges to search the
Facebook accounts of suspects. In addition, another
11 warrants have been authorized by federal agencies
this year alone, nearly double that for 2010 .
Not one of the warrants have been challenged
regarding violating a person’ s Fourth Amendment
rights against unlawful search and seizure. The exact
number of warrants served on Facebook is not easy to
figure out because a few records are sealed, and
warrant applications oftentimes involve case names
that are not typical according to Reuters.
In a telephone interview with Reuters, Facebook’s
Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan, did not disclose the
number of warrants that had been served on the
company. He said Facebook is mindful of user privacy
and that it does not openly welcome law- enforcement
“fishing expeditions.”
The Facebook search warrants typically demand a
user’ s “neoprint” and “photoprint, ” Facebook terms for
profile and photo information that are unavailable to
account holders — these words appear in manuals for
law enforcement agencies on how to request data
from Facebook. The manuals, which are said to be
posted on various public- advocacy websites ,
according to Reuters, appear to have been prepared
by Facebook, although a spokesman for the company
declined to confirm their authenticity.
Reportedly, Twitter and some other social networking
sites have adopted policies to contact customers when
their accounts are being investigated with regards to
legal matters.
Readers, what do you think about the surge in law
enforcement requests to search Facebook users
accounts?