I read Kafka's The Castle when I was younger. Scared the bejeezus out of me. Just a long boring runaround with the strong sense that the State could wreck your shit if it wanted to.
This Washington Post story sounds a lot like Kafka. I'm not too interested in what the fellow at the center of the story did or did not do. What gets me is the way we've built an apparatus that is so opaque, you can be in the position of not really knowing whether you have an enemy or not.
First, here is a wonderful tool our government has given itself -- the administrative subpoena.
Proponents describe administrative subpoenas as critical tools that allow investigators to avoid protracted judicial reviews to obtain information that could, for example, help them identify someone sexually exploiting a child or track down a suspected drug trafficker.
Speed is what makes them so useful, former and current federal investigators told The Post. With no external bureaucracy, the government can obtain phone, financial and internet records in days.
Second, is the practice of showing up at people's doors because of emails or things they post online. The words are violence people seem to have won the day, although maybe not in the way they expected: we don't really believe words are violence, but our government (and I suspect most people in the US) do believe that words are evidence of intent to commit violence. We seem to be interpreting this with an ever-broader scope.
So, guy reads a story about some immigrant being prosecuted. Guy googles the prosecutor's name and finds an email address. Guy writes the prosecutor this email:
Mr. Dernbach, don’t play Russian roulette with H’s life. Err on the side of caution. There’s a reason the US government along with many other governments don’t recognise the Taliban. Apply principles of common sense and decency.
DHS files an administrative subpoena with Google (guy used a Gmail address) asking for
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license and Social Security numbers.
Google notifies guy, and says he has seven days to protest the subpoena. Google doesn't provide a copy of the subpoena.
Courts don't know about the subpoena because it's not a judicial subpoena.
Out of an abundance of caution, we mobilize our surveillance state. How much does all this cost? $10,000? Probably more. Just love the feeling that not only am I living in Kafka, I'm paying for it, too.
Interestingly, the administrative subpoena is not really "new." It was widely used by Office of Inspector Generals (OIGs) for years on other government agencies and investigation targets. The difference here is that an agency is using it specifically on private parties for fishing, which is a bit new.
Didn't know this! Thanks for the details.