INITIAL POST 11.05.05
PROPHET TALK: CLARIFICATION & NEWS ANALYSIS
Time Warner, Inc.'s subsidiary AOL recently questioned the validity of an article used as the basis for a report claiming Homeland Security had received “unfettered access” to AOL customer files. Readers should look to the end of this article for additional comments including a clarification and a statement from AOL itself. But the issue raised a bigger question: Why was the report picked up far and wide, and why was there so much interest in it and receptivity to it?
While AOL officials must be justifiably upset, the rapid circulation might also suggest an image problem. (Google “AOL fraud” to see further evidence of this.) To ask this question is not to “blame the victim.” In fact, AOL has issued a steady stream of polls, alerts and public statements about cyber crime in all its nefarious incarnations. But search the ‘Net for statements of concern about the erosion of privacy in America, or over the aggressive centralizing impulse of the Bush Administration or Congress and little or nothing will present itself. Yet here’s what the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had to say about the current state of privacy laws in this country as of May 2005: “The current statutory regime is inadequate … Since there are numerous holes in the regime, there are many circumstances when neither court orders nor subpoenas are required. The government can simply ask for the information. AN INDIVIDUAL’S PRIVACY IS PROTECTED ONLY BY THE VAGUE AND TOOTHLESS PRIVACY POLICIES OF THE COMPANIES HOLDING THEIR INFORMATION (emphasis added).”
Below, FMNN has selected among quotes and links on the ‘Net that might tend to make an open-ended Time Warner (AOL) partnership with government security (such as the report in question suggested) a reasonable, if not accurate, or pleasant, reality. The selections are arbitrary in the sense that there are almost always others that would serve the purpose; some cites are from obscure or so-called “radical” publications, but again there are similar quotes elsewhere and readers are invited to look for themselves if they have questions. Taken individually, the information gathered together below perhaps reflects in large part business as usual, the fairly mundane occurrences of corporate life. Yet taken as a whole, they would SEEM indicative of AOL’s (and Time Warner’s) participation in an emergent American “Security State.” This is a perception that Time Warner and AOL probably ought not ignore.
AOL HOMELAND-SECURITY RELATIONSHIPS INCLUDE VENDORS: AOL recently announced it had extended its partnership with Cyota, in order to provide online security solutions for financial institutions. Cyota itself announced in January ’05 the hiring of Amit Yoran – Homeland Security’s first Cyber Security Chief. (Cyota Press release, January ‘05)
*****
-AOL CHIEF TRUST OFFICER IS AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Tatiana Gau-Platt, Chief Trust Officer and Senior Vice President at America Online, Inc. “has been described by the Boston Herald as ‘a former CIA agent’ who speaks six languages.” Wired.com described her appointment this way: “There's a new sheriff in town. … Tatiana Gau, a former Central Intelligence Agency employee and expert on industrial espionage [has joined AOL] as its new vice president of integrity assurance … While at the CIA she worked in something called the Office of Security. … Before undertaking this assignment, Gau was executive vice president of Parvus International, a security and risk-assessment organization that specializes in industrial espionage. AOL has a contract with Parvus to provide certain security services, and Gau admitted that she 'came into contact with AOL' while at Parvus. AOL's director of security, Bob Wade, is also a former Parvus man. Prior to that, he was an FBI agent.” (Wired.com; Page Six, NY Post, August 23, 2004)
*****
-AOL WORKS “CLOSELY” WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES: In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science and Research & Development on July, 15 2003, Gau-Platt stated: “We cooperate with other ISPs, mailers, and members of the computer industry on our plans and initiatives. We also work closely with the FTC, FCC, and other federal and state entities.” (Testimony before House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science and Research & Development, July 15, 2003)
See this Site
(3rd paragraph down)
*****
-AOL IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY ALLIANCE: This organization is funded and directed by Homeland Security, as follows: “Creating a more detailed program structure, as outlined by the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which specifically links budgets to mission priorities, is an important step … The private sector, state and local governments, the Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and law enforcement must also work together more productively and more rapidly. There is still much to be done in this area, both domestically and internationally, as illegal cyber activities may soon become one of the principal long-term threats to the homeland.” (Report by the Chairman, Cybersecurity Subcommittee, December, 2004)
See this Site
(See “3. Educating the Consumer and Beyond”)
See this Site
(See “Executive Summary” at beginning of report)
See this Site
(See “Congressional Activity” at end of report)
*****
-AOL SECRET SERVICE INITIATIVES: “In 1995, the Secret Service formed the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force, the flagship of the Secret Service's nationwide effort to protect consumers from computer crime. This unique public-private partnership [includes] Microsoft, AOL-Time Warner, Intel, Citibank …” (Computer Security Orgs., 2004)
See this Site
(See middle, New York Electronic Crimes Task Force (NYECTF))
*****
-HOMELAND SECURITY BY LAW, ACTS IN SECRECY: “Most alarming to civil liberties advocates is the Homeland Security Act’s broad Freedom of Information Act exemption for ‘critical infrastructure’ information voluntarily provided by private industries to the DHS. Critical infrastructure information, which includes information about telecommunications, chemical and energy plant locations and weaknesses, as well as the name of the company submitting the information, is not subject to the FOIA.” (Silha Bulletin – Winter, 2003)