Fascinating stuff happening in the world of surveillance that can be covered in fully panels and we are always glad to have a lineup and smart focus to address that range of topics in our shorter flash talks and to begin the senior counsel and director of Freedom Technology and freedom, this is a time where we hear a lot about the goal of putting the first but surveillance based in this often creates friction with our allies when our surveillance goals conflict and im happy to welcome that from an international perspective. [applause] thank you and hello. I am with the center for democracy and technology, ww the cdt. Org. I want to talk about the applications of America First surveillance policy. When i say America First i mean americans first, the surveillance policy on the intelligence side of the equation discriminates in favor of americans and against foreigners in a dramatic way when it comes to surveillance that occurs outside the United States. Inside the United States it is relatively even between americans and foreigners. In both cases when the government wants to surveilled a person in the United States and collect Communications Content for intelligence purposes it has to show that the purpose is an agent of a foreign power or an entity like a Foreign Terrorist Organization or Foreign Government. That requirement is a very high level of proof of probable cause that the person is an agent of a foreign power and the has to be done in front of a judge in the supersecret pfizer court. The outside the United States, International Intelligence surveillance directed at foreigners does not have those protections. If conducted under executive order there is no probable cause requirement, no requirement that the person being agent of the government or of a Foreign Terrorist Organization and no judge making determination at all. Any activity and intentions of a foreigner a fair game and both collection meaning not targeted collection is acknowledged. Internationally for foreigners who are using u. S. Cloud providers, the news is not better that surveillance is conducted under section 702 and you heard about that on the last panel in no probable cause, no determination that the target is a foreign power and no judge is approving individual targets and theyve approved problematic surveillance based on the certification but no determination with respect to individual targets. Any information relevant to u. S. Foreign policy for National Security is fair game. So America First surveillance policy can impact the right to foreigners because of standard or low in the u. S. Government ability to Access Communication is very high especially relative to other countries, it is high in part because a large providers are located in the United States. But America First diminishes the rights of americans and i say that because we americans can mitigate more than ever with foreigners were abroad, even the domestic communication can be routed abroad where they might be subject to permissive surveillance regimes. By targeting foreigners u. S. Government collects communication of people United States intentionally incidentally, that means we intend to collect the communication of americans who are communicating with foreign target, it is intended. By targeting foreigners of low standards the u. S. Government amasses a database of the communication that includes communication of americans and then it turned around and queries the data for american communication without probable cause that its in foreign power with the result of America First surveillance policy is a diminishing in the rights of americans. By failing to extent basic protection to the foreigners, we allow the database of communication to grow and grow quite huge and includes a communication of american because we communicate with foreigners abroad and communications are collected in the database even though domestic to domestic. America first offers little protection to foreigners and also diminishes the protection that would be available to americans. I talked about american first and the intelligence contest because thats worth most pronounced. In the context of criminal surveillance where the government is investigating a crime, they had not been, until last year a distinction between americans and foreigners. Everybody got the same rights. The combat adopted in 2018 for the first time extended a version of America First to criminal surveillance. Under the agreement that the United States entered into with the uk. The uk can compel disclosures of stored content and in real time under uk law which is more permissive than the u. S. Law of all surveillance targets except for americans and except for people present in the United States. That is the first time that criminal surveillance laws have distinguished between americans and everyone else. America first in the criminal side of the equation and had a good adverse effect on americans that it does on the intelligence side. The uk can show that to the United States government, communication that involve americans that were collected when others were targeted. Without the intervention of a judge. The next big test for whether we will continue to extend America First which as ive said is not even protecting americans, the next big test will be a treaty that is being negotiated between the United States, the council of europe and other governments. That treaty is a protocol to existing treaty called the cybercrime convention. This protocol is designed to permit crossborder demands for communication traffic data, think of an email log for subscriber information. The protocol says how we can do that for a Domestic Order for its own process which i presume based on stats provided by the Foreign Government for go with a foreign order to disclose wherewith your browsing history that issued without judicial review from a Budapest Cybercrime Convention signatory like hungary Turkey Russia albania or ukraine. Did i say ukraine . [laughter] yes. It is a signatory for the Budapest Convention presumably to sign the protocol of cybercrime a mile down the road from this conference there is a big discussion among members of congress whether to remove from office the president of the United States because he attempted to list ukraine in an effort to investigate his political rival joe biden through his son hunter biden who had a position on the board of directors of a company in ukraine. How would ukraine investigate hunter biden . What would it do . Over half of criminal investigation involve electronic evidence one could presume that what ukraine would do is seek email logs from hunter biden presumably using a us provider his email logs are stored by that provider and could become available to the Foreign Government under the Budapest Convention. Even today that providers can volunteer this information unless the law has a flaw it does permit Foreign Governments even your email logs without there being any restriction except from the Foreign Government itself and what that apply is. The issue with the Budapest Convention it gives the Foreign Government a way to compel the information under Foreign Government laws. If ukraine once Hunter Bidens email log both the United States and ukraine signed the convention unless the us makes certain reservations, the ukrainian order could be honored by the us and compel the disclosure of the biden email logs. I think congress will not allow this result based on the track record so far Congress Instead will want to protect americans to throw the foreigners under the best yet again. This is the same approach throwing the foreigners under the bus that has also thrown americans under the bus with them because it changes the communications without having to go through the normal Legal Process as if it obtained them directly. The government could choose to give effect to the foreign order by reserving the right to issue due process section 27 oh three of title 18 and it would have to go in front of a judge to show reasonable suspicion to get the information sought by the foreign order. But the Budapest Convention doesnt prohibit discrimination currently but for the government to apply that process and a different process for the foreigner data such as the process of simply honoring the foreign demand. This is a problem that will be facing Congress Last year next year or the year after when it is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention protocol. We need advocates and people who work at companies and those who are interested in surveillance to be proactive and we need to ensure the Budapest Convention protocol has equal treatment of data of foreigners and nationals with a strong due process protection and it currently doesnt do that. I want to leave you with a thought to be aware of the siren call of America First it doesnt protect americans or put us first and diminishes the rights of everyone. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much up next if you debated surveillance you probably heard someone Say Something along the lines why should i be worried about this im not worried the government is not investigating me but if you have heard that the person speaking was probably was white because surveillance doesnt fall equally on all groups and its because they fall unequally on certain persons so we will do a little bit about the way programs operating under violent extremism surveillance communities much more are under scrutiny than middleoftheroad political views. [applause] hello i am a legal scholar from damascus and National CivilRights Organization ensuring the freedom of americans of all faith today i will talk about one Surveillance Program imagine if no matter where you go or what you say or how you feel is tracked and the government can monitor you at school or at universities and hospitals Mental Health visits, what if the government aggregated all of this data to make a determination . Will come to violent extremism a Government Program that claims they can identify the violence before it occurs by monitoring their behavior and using Public Resources and private spaces so what if we frequent a mosque to discuss policy . You would expect sadness but that would not be a precursor for violence that is how it will define the act so where does one go to find a program like this . Not far. Welcome to illinois. Illinois is just one grant recipient for a Program Designed to lead federal local government to private entities in order to monitor individuals. The dip grant from department of Homeland Security calls in a full government approach this document is the program plan in illinois as you can see according to their own materials the state agency wanting to link federal agencies the fbi and Us Attorneys Office to state agencies the governor and the air illinois a Terrorism Task force educators social Service Providers faith and community groups. This isnt just happening in illinois. Programs operate across the country in each of these locations adjust the past four years there have been 57 to the department of Homeland Security alone operating at every level of government. But to argue that these programs are effective they are not our own government says so those that have evaluated the programs the evaluation has looked at similar programs and what has happened in looking at a uk program called the prevent those that were mandated to report the radicalization and the result children under 18 were reported for normal behavior there are ethical concerns regarding surveillance and talk of potential repression this august Duke University flagged the programs failure under the Obama Administration because of a lack of structure and opposition from the Muslim American community. Over criminalized with a huge surveillance concern but how do we get here . In 2009 the fbi called this a Public Relations with an Outreach Team a Pilot Program meant to connect somali communities in minnesota to determine how much access the half the fbi has to the Somali Community and to identify targeted compacts within the community this underground program morphed into a Community Partnership of the program we know today to foster these relationships and minority groups. Following this in 2009 the fbi designated additional communities of interest including denver and washington dc this is all part of the Current Program we are discussing today the racial and religious targeting are discriminatory into this day they continue to focus on somali communities across the us. Monitoring the Program Since their origin to have enough surveillance for the communities most of the information about these programs are not public and since 2018 the freedom of information act was sent to 16 different agencies what we found was an everexpanding program. Take for instance with record request from the Muslim Justice league found one program run by the Boston Police department claims in their language somalis were inherently violent and left alone will commit violence the somali Youth Coordinator withdrew from the program over concerns it even drafted surveys to see if attitudes after the program toward the muslim ratified was positive or negative. Could you imagine they target to their faith but yet for such a broad program lets talk about how much funding they have received. Surveillance is expensive both in 2014 and 2015 the department of Homeland Security provided 10 million Grant Funding these types of programs receive funding from other agencies including department of defense and department of justice. So what kind of oversight follows . It is minimal. The documents we found shows that at best agencies have to submit a paragraph long report there is no evaluation or reporting and a complete lack of guidance on Civil Liberties or privacy protections so we have to ask where are the programs . Houses of worship in Montgomery County maryland among other places mosques these programs operate that in 2017 the denver Police Department has a Grant Application that stated they would focus on schoolage children particularly refugee students because of their risk of radicalization. The investigation revealed it was after School Program and the Denver Police have disavowed the language but that it does do harm to communities Law Enforcement also gets funding but the Illinois Program the state agency works with multiple agents and the chicago Police Department gang Intelligence Unit and the Illinois Police and has plans to collaborate with i. C. E. Here are some draft agreements for something they had a shared Responsibility Committee where the fbi would flag and refer individuals for special monitoring b