Mediaboss Marketing

U.S. intelligence officials face bipartisan congressional pressure to explain their use of surveillance powers, following a rebuke from a federal judge and Fox News host Tucker Carlson's high-profile dispute with the National Security Agency.

"Our institutions are only as good as the American public's confidence in them," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wrote a top intelligence official, requesting an investigation of Carlson's allegation the NSA violated his privacy. "The NSA publicly responded to Mr. Carlson's allegations with a statement on Twitter that frankly only created more questions."

Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, did not dispute the NSA's denial of wrongdoing in Carlson's case. Yet, Rubio's request for "a formal inquiry" into Carlson's complaint coincided with a sharper rebuke of the FBI, which has drawn bipartisan ire due to a federal judge's revelation of "pervasive" misuse of data collected by the NSA.

"We each share an obligation to protect Americans' civil liberties," Indiana Republican Rep. Victoria Spartz and California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren wrote in a Tuesday letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray. "However, the FBI has repeatedly violated the civil liberties of Americans through widespread misuse of Section 702 data."

TUCKER CARLSON'S NAME IN NSA INTERCEPTS REVEALED THROUGH 'UNMASKING': REPORT

Section 702 is a provision of federal law that allows the NSA to collect the communications of foreign targets overseas without a warrant. That surveillance authority looms over both controversies, as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge revealed FBI officials have failed to follow the rules designed to prevent the Section 702 program from being used in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

"The FBI's failure to properly apply its querying standard when searching Section 702-acquired information was more pervasive than was previously believed," the judge wrote in a November 18, 2020, opinion that the Office of the Director of Intelligence published in April.

Carlson, for his part, has accused President Joe Biden's administration of "spying" on him and planning to leak his plans to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I wasn't embarrassed about trying to interview Putin. He's obviously newsworthy," Carlson said last month. "But still, in this case, I decided to keep it quiet. I figured that any kind of publicity would rattle the Russians and make the interview less likely to happen. But the Biden administration found out anyway, by reading my emails."

NSA officials denied that Carlson was a "target" of surveillance, while his account spurred outside analysts to surmise the U.S. spy agencies tasked with monitoring the communications of Putin's associates detected Carlson's interview request a phenomenon known as "incidental" collection.

"By law, I should have been identified internally merely as a U.S. journalist or American journalist," Carlson said. "But that's not how I was identified. It was identified by name. I was unmasked."

Rubio, following Carlson's demand for an explanation from National Intelligence director Avril Haines and NSA Director Paul Nakasone, urged Haines to coordinate with the NSA to launch a "formal inquiry" into both aspects of the controversy: the initial information gathering and the alleged unmasking.

However, the senator did not dispute the NSA's denial and suggested a transparent investigation might clear the air.

"Our institutions are only as good as the American public's confidence in them," Rubio wrote to Haines. "As such, it is essential that the IC under your leadership hold itself to account if misconduct has occurred, and convincingly reassure an American public increasingly attuned to the perception of widespread misconduct where it has not occurred."

Spartz, Lofgren, and 15 other House lawmakers took up the FISA court judge's findings rather than Carlson's complaint. They signaled to Wray they are confident the FBI is guilty of "misuse of raw Section 702 data," although they did not refer to Carlson. They set a deadline for the FBI chief to schedule a classified briefing on the controversy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"The FBI has systematically failed to comply with Section 702 restrictions and its own regulations to protect Americans' civil liberties," Spartz, the Indiana Republican, said Tuesday in a statement accompanying the release of the Aug. 2 letter. "The core function of the government is to protect our constitutional rights, and members of Congress should be briefed by FBI officials regarding the bureau's efforts to remediate this issue."

Original Location: Congress pressures US spy agencies as Tucker Carlson feuds with NSA

Read the original here:
Congress pressures US spy agencies as Tucker Carlson feuds with NSA - Denver Gazette

WhatsApp surveillance orders are being signed off on without the government needing to explain why it wants them.

In July of last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration in Ohio wanted to carry out surveillance on seven WhatsApp users. To do that, agents asked a judge to approve the use of surveillance tools known as pen register and trap and trace devices. While they wouldnt get the actual content of WhatsApp messages, they would get up-to-date information on what numbers those WhatsApp users were either messaging or calling, when, for how long and from what IP address. The latter part could also provide a rough geolocation of the user, hence the use of pen registers to both build up cases against suspects by showing, for instance, with whom drug dealers are communicating, and to assist in tracking down fugitives.

But in the investigators application to have the surveillance device installed on WhatsApp systems, there was almost zero detail on just why the DEA wanted to spy on all those numbers, regardless of where they were based (four of the seven users had Mexican telephone numbers) and for a period of 60 days. Thats because the government doesnt actually need to give a full explanation to a judge to get their approval for a pen register, thanks to a U.S. law that privacy experts say needs a drastic update so that federal agencies have to provide more detail on why they need to carry out surveillance using the surveillance tool. At a time when theres heightened concern about surveillance of encrypted apps like WhatsApp, in part thanks to the Pegasus Project revelations of global unchecked spyware use via Israeli provider NSO, pen registers represent a little-understood, potentially privacy-endangering surveillance method that the U.S. government uses frequently on Facebook and its hugely popular messaging tool.

In the Ohio pen register application, the government wrote explicitly that it only needs to provide three facts to get approval to use a pen register, none of which provide any background on the relevant investigation. They include: the identity of the attorney or the law enforcement officer making the application; the identity of the agency making the application; and a certification from the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by that agency. This explanation, cited word-for-word in other pen register applications across various states reviewed by Forbes, is based on the Pen Register Act within the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Under that law, courts have held that the Fourth Amendment, protecting Americans from unreasonable searches, does not apply to such surveillance, so theres no need for investigators to show probable cause.

Critics say that the law is inadequate. If that is all the government needs to inform the court, then what is the point of having a statutory standard in the first place? It is doing no work at all, says Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). We knew that the certification standard was abysmally low, but I thought that at the very least the government was respectful enough to tell the court what is going on so that it could ask questions and exercise moral suasion. Its a short step between saying that you dont have to do anything beyond reciting boilerplate text, and actually refusing to do anything other than recite boilerplate text.

The legalese above is the government's explanation of why it doesn't need to give any facts about its investigation when applying for a pen register to carry out surveillance on seven WhatsApp numbers.

The government does sometimes provide more information on why it is going to use a pen register, but that typically happens when they are applying for more information from a telecom or internet company under different laws. In an investigation in Missouri, where police were looking for a fugitive charged with drug dealing, the government had the surveillance device used on a Facebook account of interest, but also asked the social media giant to provide subscriber information, like the users name and address. For the latter, the government had to provide specific and articulable facts that proved the data being requested was relevant to the investigation, under another part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Such hybrid orders that combine both the Pen Register Act and Stored Communications Act sections of the ECPA were last year deemed inherently questionable by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) because they are not explicitly authorized by federal law.

However it applies to use them, the government can put pen traps on almost any technology that transmits some kind of message, from cellphone services to other social media apps like Snapchat and LinkedIn. That includes car Wi-Fi systems. A recent report in Forbes detailed the surveillance of a Dodge vehicle with a device that imitates a cellphone tower in order to identify and locate a target of interest. But before that, they put a pen register on the cars internal modem that provides the Wi-Fi. After they deployed all the snooping tech, the suspect was arrested.

Though the ACLU and other privacy-focused nonprofits have, for much of the last two decades, called for laws that force the government to provide full explanations and probable cause for pen registers mandatory, theres little sign of any desire for urgent change on Capitol Hill. But, given the government is increasingly using pen registers to track all kinds of modern technologies, ones that didnt exist when the 1986 law that determines their use was created, greater oversight of this much-used surveillance method could be incoming.

This story is part of The Wire IRL feature in my newsletter, The Wiretap, where Ill provide links to the full search warrants described above. Out every Monday, its a mix of strange true crime and real-world surveillance, with all the relevant search warrants and court documents for you to pore over. Theres also all the cybersecurity and privacy news you need to read. Sign up here.

Read more:
How American Law Lets Feds Spy On WhatsApp Without Needing To Say Why - Forbes

In March of 2021, Chinas most important annual political meetings took place as thousands of delegates to the National Peoples Congress (NPC), the national legislature, and the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), the top political advisory body, convened for a week at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Commonly known as thelianghui or Two Sessions this years elite gatherings in Beijing were particularly significant. The Chinese leadership not only set the national socio-economic and political priorities for 2021, but also approved Chinas 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP) (2021-2025), the grand strategic blueprint for the next half decade, as well as longer-term goals for 2035. Whats more, 2021 marks the centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with the 100th anniversary officially commemorated in July.

For the business world, the lianghui provided a critical bellwether for taking stock of how Beijing intends to steer the Chinese economy in the year ahead, through 2025, and beyond. Major themes included:

This article will focus on how the lianghui will impact intellectual property (IP).

As China aims to become a leading innovative country by 2035, the work report laid out an ambitious national technological blueprint for the next five years, emphasizing that innovation remains at the heart of Chinas modernization drive. The government vowed to focus on achieving major breakthroughs in core technologies, including next-generation artificial intelligence, semiconductors, cloud computing, and other key areas, as well as establish more national laboratories and innovation centers. Beijing will also aim to get 56% of the country on 5G networks. By 2025, the government aims to have the digital economy account for about 10% of Chinas newly added economic output.

Eight projects were identified as impacting the digital economy, namely cloud computing, big data, Internet of things, industrial networks, block chain, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality according to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).

From 2021-2025, research and development (R&D) spending will be ramped up by more than 7% every year, with expenditures expected to account for a higher percentage of GDP than that during the 13th FYP period. This year, China will increase its spending on basic research by 10.6%. The work report also said that the government will continue the policy of granting an extra tax deduction of 75% on enterprises R&D costs and raise this to 100% for manufacturing enterprises.

As can be seen, this continues a strong trend in increasing R&D funding that started in 1995 and indicates a commitment to R&D as well as providing tax incentives for R&D projects being in China.

In particular, the 14th FYP featured a renewed focus on accelerating the Fourth Industrial Revolution and transforming China into an advanced manufacturing superpower, outlining plans to strengthen Chinas global competitiveness in areas such as robotics, new energy vehicles, aircraft development, and agricultural machinery, among others. Speaking on the sidelines of the Two Sessions, Xiao Yaqing, Minister of Industry and Information Technology, said, The manufacturing industry is the lifeblood of the countrys economy, and the real economy should be further strengthened and improved.

Miao Wei, a government advisor and member of the CPPCC, predicted that it will take at least three decades to achieve Chinas goal of becoming a manufacturing powerhouse, saying that China is still a third-tier manufacturing power and citing Germany and the U.S. as examples of first-tier manufacturing nations. Chinas manufacturing output as a share of its economy has declined in recent years, slipping to just over a quarter of GDP in 2020, and Miao warned that this has been occurring too early and too quickly.

The significant commitments for elevated R&D spending and plans for a reinvigorated manufacturing drive underscored Beijings determination to continue expanding the role of innovation as a major growth engine for the Chinese economy. Coming amid growing rivalries with the United States and other major economies around technology, the goals also reflected a rising urgency to reduce Chinas technological dependency on external markets and mitigate the vulnerabilities of its supply chains to geopolitical tensions. Going forward, this will be a top official priority under DCS. This reliance on external markets has caused issues with R&D in China.

For the first time in a work report, the government also pledged to expand efforts against business monopolies as part of efforts to ensure fair market competition. Coming after the recent launch of an anti-trust crackdown targeting domestic tech giants, the announcement signaled that the tougher approach to governing Chinas booming technology sectors can be expected to intensify further. Companies should be prepared for the likelihood that authorities will take a more active and interventionist role in the Chinese private sector. Similar trends are developing in the United States. See our recent article on "Promoting Competition in the American Economy Executive Order: Antitrust Is Back?"

Intellectual property (IP) owners are advised to have a working knowledge of the recent draft published in April of this year to see what is planned for the coming years. Knowledge of the FYP will help to set the check points for ones own IP strategy and plans.

Intellectual property has taken a key role in the development of technological progress in Chinas big economy. Chinas IP system is gradually changing, with each plan having various focus points. In the FYP, two major focus points are evident:

These two focus areas are further detailed below.

The enforcement system of the patent law has been strengthened with the recent fourth amendment. This includes valuable rights for the pharmaceutical sector. The implementation of the FYP will further emphasize the use of the newly-created, punitive compensation system for infringement of patents and will increase the damage compensation. Exposure to multiples of up to five times the otherwise calculated damages are likely to become a more common. In addition, the criminal enforcement of IP rights has been proposed.

Improvements to the judicial and administrative branches of the law enforcement system of intellectual property rights were announced, together with work on the effectiveness of the arbitration and mediation system. Notarization requirements were also mentioned as being within the scope of the reform.

It can be expected that the next five years will bring a more detailed and standardized IP protection regime of the administrative departments and the judiciary. Besides the abovementioned tools to act against infringers, it will be crucial to check in detail what else will be designed to improve IP enforcement. The details may determine the balance between plaintiff and accused infringers in the infringement proceedings and hopefully will provide a less complex and more predictable proceedings according to accepted guidelines.

Handling of overseas IP disputes will be guided with support from the Chinese government, through new platforms such as the National Guidance Center for Handling Overseas Intellectual Property Disputes with ten local sub-centers. There is also an intention to provide intensive training.

This demonstrates that knowledge on the IP system will be crucial for IP creation and enforcement strategies for IP owners entering the Chinese system as well as for Chinese looking abroad.

The FYP has a clear focus on high-technology fields, of which the following are specifically mentioned: quantum information, photonics and micro-nanoelectronics, network communications, artificial intelligence, biomedicine and modern energy systems. While there is a focus on becoming a leader, or at least becoming fully self-reliant in these technology sectors, the IP related to these technologies will likely see the most benefits in the future investment via national laboratories. In addition, it can be assumed that patentability exclusions and patentability hurdles (e.g. for business methods or software per se) will be further softened or lowered to allow the drafting of claims that cover these fields.

All applicants in the high-tech sector will benefit from these improvements. Therefore, patent applications that face examination challenges may become acceptable in the next five years. It could be worthwhile to pursue inventions in those areas. It will be important to watch for practice changes to see which claim formats are supported by the CNIPA patent office. According to a media interview with Shen Changyu, CNIPA Director, there is currently ongoing research on how to deal with the question of whether works and inventions completed by AI can generate new IP rights. Interesting questions may be posed and answered.

While these high-tech fields will be supported, there is another important initiative that focuses on the quality of IP. This initiative is implemented through the promotion of ownership of high-value invention patents per 10,000 population in the FYP, which replaces the old targets of ownership of invention patents per 10,000 population in previous plans. It is worth noting that the number of high-value invention patents owned by per 10,000 people reach 12 this year and was a record. As part of the quality initiative, we have seen the drafting of a completely new legislation to prevent irregular patent applications, including revisions of the Measures on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors.

The recent discussion has raised concerns on whether the new measures could also be overreaching and may negatively affect IP strategies which have been commonly used to pursue legitimate goals of the innovator (e.g., filing multiple divisional applications to obtain the optimal protection for all the best inventive features). This should be carefully watched to not stumble into the scope of these regulations that should according to its original purpose prevent misuse of the IP system.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.

[View source.]

Continue reading here:
Chinas 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) and Its Impact on Your Intellectual Property Portfolio - JD Supra

A federal judge sentenced a former Starr County gangster to 10 years in prison Monday.

U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey sentenced Hector Pelon Guerra, 41, of La Rosita a former ranking member of the Texas Chicano Brotherhood in Starr County during a hearing Monday afternoon in Victoria.

Guerra pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 2,200 pounds of marijuana. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors dropped a gun charge against him and recommended 10 years in prison.

I do accept my responsibility, your honor, Guerra said.

The case brought together Homeland Security Investigations, which is part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Criminal Investigations Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

They identified more than 70 people affiliated with the Texas Chicano Brotherhood.

The McAllen investigation revealed that Ricardo GARCIA, Rafael DIAZ, and Hector GUERRA were ranking members within the Starr County faction of the TxCB organization, according to a summary of the case against Guerra filed by federal prosecutors. These ranking members thus became targets of an electronic surveillance (wiretap) investigation.

The Gulf Cartel paid members of the Texas Chicano Brotherhood to transport marijuana throughout the Rio Grande Valley, according to federal court records. The gang also robbed stash houses and sold the stolen marijuana to other smugglers.

Guerra and other members of the gang moved about 330 pounds of marijuana a week, according to information provided to the government by an informant. The gang also participated in kidnappings and murders.

After a grand jury indicted Guerra, agents tracked him to a trailer home in La Rosita. A regional SWAT team from San Juan ripped off the door with a battering ram, set off two stun grenades and arrested him on Nov. 21, 2018.

And that is how the SWAT team in San Juan knocks on the door, said Bill Weir, the host of a short-lived television show called Border Live, which filmed the arrest. Weir said agents had both a federal arrest warrant and a search warrant.

The search warrant had been written by Arturo David Ibarra Jr., an investigator with the Starr County District Attorneys Office.

Ibarra told a judge that investigators believed Guerra was an enforcer in the Texas Chicano Brotherhood.

In early 2018 the suspected party was arrested for the possession of marihuana. During the scope of that investigation intelligence revealed that the suspected party was smuggling narcotics, specifically marihuana, in large quantities and has direct contact to the Gulf Cartel, read the affidavit, according to federal court records. It is my belief that the suspected party has evidence in his possession which can be beneficial to the investigation into the Texas Chicano Brotherhood gang.

Ibarra requested a no-knock warrant based on information provided by an informant.

During the investigation Investigator Ibarra learned that the suspected party attended a Texas Chicano Brotherhood meeting on November 18, 2018 and the suspected party was in the possession of a AK-47 and a handgun, read the affidavit, according to federal court records.

When agents searched the trailer, they didnt find an AK-47. They did, however, find a pistol hidden in an air-conditioning vent.

Attorney Micah Wayne Hatley of Victoria, who represented Guerra, challenged the search warrant.

Information about a months-old marijuana bust simply wasnt enough to justify a search, Hatley argued in a motion to suppress. The warrant also failed to include any information that linked the marijuana bust to Guerras house.

Statements that Guerra made after his arrest should be suppressed too, Hatley argued, because a federal agent questioned Guerra after he invoked his right to remain silent.

Rainey, the federal judge, agreed.

Hector Guerra, 41, of La Rosita was a ranking member of the Texas Chicano Brotherhood. (Photo courtesy of the Starr County Sheriffs Office.)

The Court finds that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply, Rainey wrote in an opinion filed in February. The search of Defendants home after the initial protective sweep incident to his arrest therefore violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Rainey also suppressed all statements Guerra made to agents.

There is no question Defendant explicitly invoked his right to remain silent. Under Miranda and its progeny, the agents should have immediately terminated the interrogation at that point, Rainey wrote. Instead of ensuring that Defendants right to remain silent was scrupulously honored, they continued, in the Governments own words, trying to encourage him to cooperate with the government.

The Texas Chicano Brotherhood green-lighted Guerra after his arrest, according to a transcript of a court hearing in August 2020. Concerned about his safety, the U.S. Marshals Service kept Guerra in solitary confinement and transferred him at least three times.

Guerra agreed to plead guilty in May.

We made the deal for 120 months, your honor, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Hubert Booth, who prosecuted the case.

Guerra said he wanted to take classes in prison and become a different person.

The first few times you came into this court, that wasnt your attitude, Rainey said.

Guerra agreed.

I know, Guerra said. And I apologize.

Follow this link:
Texas Chicano Brotherhood 'enforcer' sentenced to 10 years in prison - Progresstimes

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Sadly, we are approaching a time in America when our elected public officials will assault the liberties we have hired them to protect. Whatever the cause, the government will soon blame its failures to contain a virus on a small portion of the population and then impose restrictions on the inalienable rights of all of us.

We cannot permit this to happen again.

During the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln thought it expedient to silence those in the northern states who challenged his wartime decisions by incarcerating them in military prisons, he was rebuked afterward by a unanimous Supreme Court. The essence of the rebuke was that no matter the state of difficulties whether war or pestilence the Constitution protects our natural rights, and its provisions are to be upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, in good times and in bad.

Whether COVID-19 is coming back or not, our central planners have panicked. We do not have a free market in the U.S. in the delivery of health care; rather, we have thousands of pages of statutes, regulations, and controls at the federal, state, and local levels.

Those controls were revealed as manifestly deficient the last time around. The feds were so protective of their control of health care an area of governance that the Supreme Court has ruled is nowhere delegated to them in the Constitution and, but for their power to tax those who defy them, is nonexistent that they insisted that only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta could be trusted to test for the virus.

It took weeks of begging by governors and mayors, and health care professionals for the feds to relent. Of course, once they acknowledged that labs throughout the country were as competent as theirs, they realized that their incompetence had deprived all physicians as well as most private sector and state government-owned labs of the test kits themselves.

We all know how central economic planning diminishes freedom, produces scarcity, and adds to the cost of products. Now we know that central micromanagement of health care kills people.

But these mayors and governors were not to be outdone by the feds in their totalitarian impulses. Many of them issued decrees that are as profoundly unconstitutional as Lincolns efforts to silence dissent.

They ordered the closing of most businesses and nearly all retail establishments. They acted as if they, and not we, owned our faces. They shuttered religious institutions. It took a year for the courts to interfere partially with this madness.

The fulfillment of these totalitarian impulses put millions out of work, closed and destroyed thousands of businesses, and impaired the fundamental rights of tens of millions all in violation of numerous sections of the Constitution that the totalitarians swore to uphold.

And now they are threatening to do this again.

The Contracts Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from interfering with lawful contracts, such as leases and employment agreements. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from interfering with life, liberty, or property without a trial at which the state must prove fault. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the state meaningfully interferes with an owners chosen lawful use of his property.

Taken together, these clauses reveal significant protections of private property in the Constitution. Add to this the threat of punishment that accompanied these decrees and the fact that they were executive decrees, not legislation, and one can see the paramount rejection of basic democratic and constitutional principles in the minds and words and deeds of those who have perpetrated them.

Add to all this the protection in the First Amendment of the rights to worship and associate, and elsewhere the judicially recognized right to travel, and it is clear that these nanny state rules were profoundly unconstitutional, indisputably unlawful, and utterly unworthy of respect or compliance.

Why is this happening again?

Throughout history, free people have been willing to accept the devils bargain of trading liberty for safety when they are fearful. We supinely accept the shallow and hollow offers of government that somehow less liberty equals more safety. It doesnt. This is the governments dream dominance without resistance.

This happened here with the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s when the Federalists feared a second revolution and punished speech critical of them, during the Civil War when Lincoln feared dissent and Congress feared defeat. They locked up innocents during World War I when President Woodrow Wilson punished the speech he hated and feared, and during the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt feared economic calamity and seized property without compensation. And, after 9/11, fearing another attack, Congress secretly crafted the Patriot Acts circumvention of the Fourth Amendment and authorized the creation of the total surveillance state.

Of course, just one year ago, we free people were all in lockdown a word used to describe confining prisoners to their cells.

This sordid history came about when the public was fearful of the unknown and trustful of the governments bargain. But the liberty that was sacrificed for the safety that was promised is being taken away again.

Liberty is natural and personal. You can sacrifice yours, but you cannot sacrifice mine. Thus, personal liberty the Declaration of Independence calls our rights inalienable, and the Ninth Amendment reflects freedoms nature as limitless is insulated from totalitarian and even majoritarian interference.

Today, the fear of contagion again gives government cover for its assaults on freedom and poses a question the government does not want to answer: If liberty can be taken away in times of crisis, is it really liberty; or is it just a license, via a temporary government permission slip, subject to the whims of the politicians in power?

We cannot permit this to happen again.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is an analyst for the Fox News Channel. He has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

Follow this link:
Freedom in the time of COVID-19 madness - Washington Times