Is InfraGard a Privacy Threat?

Enigma Foundry: I agree that it bears watching. Nonprofits, private corporations, and government should all be held accountable to the rule of law, and as transparent as reasonably possible in what they do.

That said, InfraGard is something akin to a neighborhood watch program, originally just for improving computer and network security, and now for physical security as well, for elements of U.S. infrastructure that are privately owned. The government *can't* protect it on its own, the bulk of the protection has to come from the private owners.

"So, are they sharing information about private citizens whom the FBI deems to be a threat? If so, what safeguards are in place to prevent 'threats' from being anyone the government doesn't like?"

Point to ponder: Alan Ralsky is a private individual who has, in the past, been one of the top spammers in the world. He has broken multiple laws and committed fraud against Internet providers in the course of his activities, since 1997. Information about his activities has been provided to law enforcement for as long as he's been doing it, but he didn't get raided until 2005 and didn't get indicted until 2008.

If you don't have solid evidence of criminal activity *and* losses that reach a certain threshold, you're not going to see a prosecution until enough evidence accumulates.

Counterterrorism is probably a little different and an area deserving of more scrutiny given the Bush administration's abuses. We already know that the FBI has misused National Security Letters.

Thanks for being reasonable about this story. A lot of people are making themselves look very foolish by jumping to absurd conclusions about InfraGard.

Tim:

I have to say that there is not enough specific information available in either of the two articles which you link to, nor in the article in the Progressive to make a determination that InfraGard is either innocuous or effective.

It does clearly bear watching, and the fact that information sharing among so many organizations and government combine to create a very powerful entity.

Further, by creating a not-for-profit that is technically not part of the government, those who have created appear to have designed it to avoid transparency and oversight which would normally be required of a government body.

When a new powerful body is creted, that is exempt from or time-tested system of checks and balances, where does the burden of proof lie, with those who create this organization, or with those who question it?

I would say the burden of proof should lie with those who have created it.

The union of large corporations and large government should be suspicious, especially given the open ended nature of their (self-appointed) mandate, e.g.:

Infragard members gain access to information that enables them to protect their assets and in turn give information to government that facilitates its responsibilities to prevent and address terrorism and other crimes.

So, are they sharing information about private citizens whom the FBI deems to be a threat? If so, what safeguards are in place to prevent 'threats' from being anyone the government doesn't like?

Given this administration's record, prudent caution, rather than unconditional and unwarranted trust, should be the guiding principle.