thelog.com


The Log • May 6 - 19, 2016 • 21


NAIS consists of approximately 200 VHF receiver sites located throughout the coastal continental U.S., inland rivers, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam. NAIS is designed to collect AIS transmissions from local vessels with a goal of improving maritime security, marine and naviga- tional safety and search and rescue services.


course, and location of recreational and commercial vessels; to retain records of the private activities of U.S. boaters; and to enable analysis of these activities.” “The NAIS program exceeds the stated purpose of marine safety and constitutes an ongoing risk to the privacy and civil liberties of mariners across the United States,” EPIC stated in its lawsuit, which sought an injunc- tive order requiring the Coast Guard to provide disclosure “of all responsive, non-exempt records.” Recreational boaters who have AIS


transponders installed on their vessels could have the information collected used for something more than collision prevention and emergency responses, the EPIC lawsuit alleged. Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security run a high risk of violating privacy rights, the allegations continued. “The NAIS program poses a signifi -


cant threat to privacy. With NAIS, the [Coast Guard can] ‘collect, integrate, and analyze’ millions of data points from boaters every day for purposes unrelated to collision avoidance,” the lawsuit claimed, adding federal offi cials “retain that data for an indeter- minate time and assign boaters secret designations that may subject mariners to government scrutiny.” Federal laws, EPIC continued in its complaint, require the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security to maintain a system of records notice and regularly perform a “Privacy Impact Assessment” “The boating community is alarmed about the NAIS program,” the EPIC complaint stated. “This system of data collection and analysis, implemented at the direction of the [Department of Homeland Security], is contrary to the [Coast Guard’s] general support for the privacy of boaters and the protection of their personal information.” The Coast Guard eventually pro-


vided EPIC with more than 2,500 pages of documents and information, all of which were posted on its website (bit.ly/1SQxuPv).


U.S. vs. Jones What constitutes a right to pri-


vacy – and what governmental actions constitute a violation of such privacy – was at the heart of a Supreme Court decision in 2012. Justices ruled the


government’s use of GPS monitoring to track someone’s vehicle in connec- tion with a drug traffi cking conspiracy case violated the driver’s constitutional privacy protections. The Department of Homeland


Security, in a 2011 internal policy memorandum, stated anyone who uses a maritime communication device to broadcast and transmit information does not have a reasonable expectation to privacy. “As a broadcast system (where communications are intended to be received by the public), there is no expectation of privacy with regard to any information transmitted on [an Automated Information System],” the policy memorandum stated. “In accordance with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the [Coast Guard] developed a two-way maritime data communication system based on [Automated Information System] technology, which is referred to as NAIS.” Department staff added the sharing


of information was necessary to safety and security. “Sharing information collected by NAIS with both governmental and non-governmental entities will result in (1) improved navigation safety and mariners’ situational awareness; (2) enhanced ability to identify and track vessels; and (3) heightened overall awareness of global maritime transac- tions to address threats to maritime transportation safety and security,” the policy memo stated. “Enhanced safety and security facilitates eco- nomic development, the free-fl ow of international commerce, and targeted environmental protection and conser- vation efforts.” In U.S. vs. Jones the Supreme Court stated in some circumstances the gov- ernment’s surveillance of an individual via electric means could qualify as an invasion of privacy and a Fourth Amendment violation. “Awareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her concurring opinion. “The net result is that [electric] monitoring — by making available at a relatively low cost such


See BIG BROTHER page 22


QUALIFIED TECHNICIANS WANTEDSW WA


U.S. Department of Homeland Security image


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72