Eric Holder in Boston Today 3/10

Atty. General Eric Holder is in Boston today being honored
along with Blackstonian Giants
Sen. Edward Brooke
Dr. David Hall

READ MORE - Eric Holder in Boston Today 3/10

A racial benchmark, with race not a factor

A racial benchmark, with race not a factor
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist

AFTER ROILING the nation’s political waters in January with Scott Brown’s election, Massachusetts made history in the midterms with barely a ripple. Governor Deval Patrick, the nation’s second-ever elected African-American governor, became the first such governor in US politics ever to be re-elected.

Nit-pickers could say this was not the most difficult distinction to achieve. The other elected governor, Doug Wilder of Virginia (1990-94), could not run again because that state does not allow consecutive terms. Only two other African Americans have ever held the office. P.B.S. Pinchback of Louisiana was appointed to fill out the final month of a disgraced predecessor during Reconstruction. David Paterson rose from lieutenant governor in New York to the top office in 2008 when Governor Eliot Spitzer was felled by a prostitution scandal. Paterson, wounded by miscues and ethics questions, chose not to run for a full term.

That should not take away from what happened here. The beauty of Patrick’s reelection was that this racial progress was not mentioned in election-night newspaper or wire coverage. Race played no controversial role in the conduct of the campaigns. The tone of the contest was about which candidate offered the most palatable management style for the Commonwealth. In a four-person field, in a state that has not, in general, fared as badly as many other states during the recession, Patrick won with a 49-percent plurality. This was in a nation where Republicans took governorships away from Democrats in seven swing states that were won in 2008 by President Obama: Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The degree to which the acrid midterms did not infect our governor’s race was reflected by its top loser. In his concession speech, Republican Charlie Baker silenced his supporters when they booed at the mention of his congratulatory phone call to Patrick. “Hey, hey, he won fair and square, OK?’’ Baker said. “We fought the good fight folks, we did. We did. But it’s important that all of us get behind the governor and do all that we can to make sure that he succeeds in pulling our economy out of the doldrums and getting us back on the right track. We are all still the people of the great state of Massachusetts.’’

That represented a polar opposite of the national GOP animus toward President Obama, as crudely expressed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. He told the National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.’’ That was quite a display of partisanship, declaring Obama’s defeat as the top Republican goal in a nation wracked with almost 10 percent unemployment and with the loss of nearly 5,800 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at a time when the country is falling behind much of the world in the industries that make the world go ’round. Does anyone remember a ranking Democrat saying during 9/11 that the single most important goal for the Democrats was to get rid of President Bush?

In contrast to Baker’s graciousness, Patrick fumbled the olive branch. Patrick said, “I haven’t been at this business so long that it doesn’t humble me beyond measure that people set aside what they’re doing to take up your cause, our cause.’’ He could have set aside a humble moment to congratulate his defeated opponents by name. He did not, referring to them only as “the other candidates.’’

In other races besides the governor’s, Massachusetts resisted the Tea Party undertow. While many Republican victories around the nation were fueled by promises to cut social spending and make tax cuts permanent, voters here resoundingly rejected slashing the state sales tax, which would have blown a $2.5 billion hole in the state budget.

Voters did repeal the state sales tax on alcohol, which will force Patrick and the Legislature to find $110 million in funds for substance treatment programs. But keeping the general sales tax marked Massachusetts as a rational state in midterm voting. Baker asked his supporters to get behind the governor. In voting to keep the sales tax, the voters of Massachusetts got behind themselves.

Derrick Z. Jackson can be reached at jackson@globe.com.

READ MORE - A racial benchmark, with race not a factor

US wants stronger wiretap powers over Web Agencies say terror suspects evade scrutiny

US wants stronger wiretap powers over Web

Agencies say terror suspects evade scrutiny

By Charlie Savage, New York Times | September 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations of the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark’’ as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking websites like Facebook, and software that allows direct “peer to peer’’ messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The legislation, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications’’ and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution’’ — including its decentralized design.

“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,’’ he said.

“They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.’’

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

“We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,’’ said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.’’

Investigators have been concerned for years that changing communications technology could damage their ability to conduct surveillance. In recent months, officials from the FBI, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the White House, and other agencies have been meeting to develop a proposed solution.

There is not yet agreement on important elements, like how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations.

But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, like Research In Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service.

In the United States, phone and broadband networks are already required to have interception capabilities, under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. It aimed to ensure that government surveillance abilities would remain intact during the evolution from a copper-wire phone system to digital networks and cellphones.

Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes — like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers — they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.

Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. Although some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them.

The FBI’s operational technologies division spent $9.75 million last year helping communication companies — including some subject to the 1994 law that had difficulties — do so. And its 2010 budget included $9 million for a “Going Dark Program’’ to bolster its electronic surveillance capabilities.

Beyond such costs, Caproni said, FBI efforts to help retrofit services have a major shortcoming: The process can delay their ability to wiretap a suspect for months.

Moreover, some services encrypt messages between users, so that even the provider cannot unscramble them.

There is no public data about how often court-approved surveillance is frustrated because of a service’s technical design.

But as an example, one official said, an investigation into a drug cartel earlier this year was stymied because smugglers used peer-to-peer software, which is difficult to intercept because it is not routed through a central hub. Agents eventually installed surveillance equipment in a suspect’s office, but that tactic was “risky,’’ the official said, and the delay “prevented the interception of pertinent communications.’’

READ MORE - US wants stronger wiretap powers over Web Agencies say terror suspects evade scrutiny