On November 12,
2014, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) published a spine-chilling piece titled FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance (linked),
which reported on the recent publication of an un-redacted version of the
infamous “suicide letter” from the FBI to Dr. King.
EFF reports
that the letter, recently discovered by historian and professor Beverly Gage, aptly
demonstrates “what happens when they [the intelligence agencies] take the fruits of the surveillance they’ve done
and unleash it on a target." The letter goes so far as to propose a date certain by which
Dr. King should take his own life or face the public airing of his dirty
laundry.
It is not my
intention in this post to dive deep into what EFF and others (myself very much
included) find so fundamentally disturbing about our past, present and future surveillance
state. Rather, my focus is more parochial,
and, as is my wont in this blog, focused on my own recent experience in terms of
the intersection of politics and commerce.
Obscene as
the politically-inspired surveillance of Dr. King might have been –
particularly in the context of his having somehow been deemed by someone to be
some sort of threat to U.S. national security – equally or more egregious was
the exercise of intense intimidation and threat of devastating results should Dr.
King not buckle to the blackmail.
Regular
readers might already surmise the parallel I’ll now draw, but please trust that
I do so with sincere respect for Dr. King and not in any way wanting to
diminish his legacy in drawing the analogy.
(Perfunctory disclaimer: Please recall that this is a personal blog
reflecting my personal observations, in no way overseen, vetted or approved by
my employer).
For the last
few years, American telecommunications service providers - the folks who provide
your cell phone service - have been denied the right to competitively provision
their networks based on nebulous, never-substantiated “national security”
concerns associated with China-based equipment vendors (an absurdity given that
every vendor codes and builds in China, regardless of where based).
In the case
of big carriers, the blackmail has been practically overt: High-level political
engagement of C-suites marrying vaporous national security concerns to a
warning – if you buy from “the Chinese” you’ll lose billions in federal
revenues. Pretty simple blackmail: With billions at stake, a carrier buckles
and sacrifices the cost and consumer benefit of better and more affordable
tech.
But with smaller,
local carriers or non-telecom enterprises, the intimidation has been more
insidious. Distribution of propaganda
through Regional
Operations Intelligence Centers and threatening phone calls, e-mails and “agent”
visits have all been used to chill commercial decisions and prospects of businesses
over which the Government cannot as easily wield the direct threat of lost revenues.
The terror
of ubiquitous surveillance aside, the question is, as Dr. Gage has wondered, whether
agencies are acting “not to serve national security but to carry out personal
and political vendettas.” The latter
certainly seems the case – in geo-political terms – when it comes to strong-arming U.S.
businesses away from competitive technologies based blindly on a vendor’s country
of headquarters.