Critical Criminology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 55–70 | Cite as

Governmentality and the War on Terror: FBI Project Carnivore and the Diffusion of Disciplinary Power

  • Holly E. Ventura
  • J. Mitchell Miller
  • Mathieu Deflem
Article

Abstract

Social control capabilities have increased significantly over the past several decades, particularly because of an increased utilization of technologically advanced surveillance methods. Following the tragic events of September 11,2001, U.S. Congress and the present Administration have granted law enforcement considerable new powers in the enforcement and prevention of terrorism-related crime. Collectively labeled under the heading of the so-called ‘‘war on terror’’ , the scope of such laws, policies and directives are challenged by civil rights organizations and numerous legislators for lack of definitional precision, arbitrary application of sanctions, and violation of privacy laws. One of federal law enforcement’s surveillance tools is ‘‘Project Carnivore,’’ a Justice Department Internet surveillance program that is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to access information flowing to and from a central processing unit on a network connection. While, theoretically relying on Michel Foucault’s theory of discipline and governmentality, as well as related insights in the social control literature, this paper examines Project Carnivore relative to the larger context of state rationality and related privacy issues.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Civil Liberties Union2002Insatiable Appetite: The Government’s Demand for New and Unnecessary Powers After September 11.AuthorWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. American Civil Liberties Union2003The ACLU in the Courts Since 9/11.AuthorWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley, S. 1997

    Govemmentality

    Loader, B.D. eds. The Governance of Cyberspace: Politics, Technology and Global RestructuringRoutledgeLondon6496
    Google Scholar
  4. Birdis, T. (2001). Justice Department asks Congress to clear wide-ranging antiterrorism legislation. The Wall Street Journal (September 19), A4.Google Scholar
  5. Black, D. 1976The Behavior of LawAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, D. 1993The Social Structure of Right and WrongAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. 1985Visions of Social ControlPolity PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Collingwood, J.E. (2000a). Editorial Responses, 24 July. Available Online: www.fbi.govGoogle Scholar
  9. Collingwood, J.E. (2000b). Editorial Responses, 25 July. Available Online: www.fbi.govGoogle Scholar
  10. Collingwood, J.E. (2000c). Editorial Responses, 7 August. Available Online: www.fbi.govGoogle Scholar
  11. Deflem, M. 1997

    Surveillance and criminal statistics: Historical foundations of governmentality

    Sarat, A.Silbey, S. eds. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, Vol. 17JAI PressGreenwich, CT149184
    Google Scholar
  12. Deflem, M. eds. 2004Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Criminological Perspectives. Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance, Vol. 5.Elsevier ScienceOxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunham, G.S. 2002Carnivore, the FBI’s e-mail surveillance system: Devouring criminals, not privacyFederal Communications Law Journal54543566Google Scholar
  14. Eggen, D. (2002a). Carnivore glitches blamed for FBI woes. Washington Post (May 29), A7.Google Scholar
  15. Eggen, D. (2002b). FBI misused wiretaps, according to memo. Washington Post (October 10), A14.Google Scholar
  16. Electronic Frontier Foundation (2000). “The Fourth Amendment and Carnivore.’’ Statement of The Electronic Frontier Foundation Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States House of Representatives, July 28, 2000. Available Online: www.eef.org Google Scholar
  17. Electronic Frontier Foundation (2003). “Chilling Effects of Anti-Terrorism’’. Available Online: www.eef.org Google Scholar
  18. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000a). “Congressional Statement on Carnivore Diagnostic Tool, 7/24/00’’. Available online: www.fbi.gov Google Scholar
  19. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000b). “Congressional Statement on Carnivore Diagnostic Tool, 9/6/00’’. Available online: www.fbi.gov Google Scholar
  20. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003). “Carnivore Diagnostic Tool’’. Available online: www.fbi.gov Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. 1977Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the PrisonVintage BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. 1980Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977Pantheon BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. 1981

    ‘Omnes et Singulatim’. Towards a criticism of ‘Political reason’

    McMurrin, S. M. eds. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 2.University of Utah PressSalt Lake City223254
    Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. 1991

    Governmentality

    Burchell, G.Gordon, C.Miller, P. eds. The Foucault EffectUniversity of Chicago PressChicago87104
    Google Scholar
  25. Garland, D. 1997‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociologyTheoretical Criminology1173214Google Scholar
  26. Gilman, J. 2001Carnivore: The uneasy relationship between the Fourth Amendment and electronic surveillance of internet communicationsCommLaw Conspectus9111129Google Scholar
  27. Gooldstein, G., Orr, C.H. 2003Application of the U.S.A. Patriot Act to criminal investigations violates the First and Fourth Amendments.Texas Bar Journal664052Google Scholar
  28. Gordon, C. 1991

    Governmental rationality: An introduction

    Burchell, G.Gordon, C.Miller, P. eds. The Foucault EffectUniversity of Chicago PressChicago151
    Google Scholar
  29. Gugliotta, G. and Krim, J. (2001). Push for increased surveillance worries some. Washington Post (September 25), A4.Google Scholar
  30. Haas, T.C. 2001Carnivore and the Fourth AmendmentConnecticut Law Review34261291Google Scholar
  31. Holmes, P.K. 2001FBI’s Carnivore: Is the government eating away our right of privacyRoger Williams University Law Review7247272Google Scholar
  32. IIT Research Institute2000Evaluation of Carnivore Diagnostic ToolAuthorChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackman, T. (2003). Judges uphold US detention of Hamdi. Washington Post (January 9), AI.Google Scholar
  34. Lerner, C.S. 2003The reasonableness of probable causeTexas Law Review819511029Google Scholar
  35. Marx, G.T. 1988Undercover: Police Surveillance in America.University of California PressBerkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Marx, G.T. 1998An ethics for the new surveillanceThe Information Society14171185Google Scholar
  37. Marx, G.T. 1999

    Measuring everything that moves: The new surveillance at work

    Simpson, I.Simpson, R. eds. The Workplace and Deviance. Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 8.JAIGreenwich, CT165189
    Google Scholar
  38. Marx, G.T. 2002

    Technology and social control

    Smelser, N.Baltes, P. eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral SciencesPergamonOxford, UK1550615511
    Google Scholar
  39. Merl, S.R. 2001Internet communication standards for the 21st century: International terrorism must force the U.S. to adopt ‘Carnivore’ and new electronic surveillance standards.Brooklyn Journal of International Law27245284Google Scholar
  40. Merton, R.K. 1936The unanticipated consequences of purposive social actionAmerican Sociological Review1894904Google Scholar
  41. O’Harrow, R. (2001). FBI’s Carnivore might target wireless text. Washington Post (August 24), E1.Google Scholar
  42. Rosen, J. (2002). Liberty wins: So far Bush runs into checks and balances in demanding new powers. Washington Post (September 15), Bl.Google Scholar
  43. Scheeres, J. (2001). “Suppression Stifles Some Sites’’. Available online: www.wired.com. Google Scholar
  44. Stanley, J., Steinhardt, B. 2003Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance SocietyACLUNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. StopCarnivoreNow (2003). “The Backdoor, the Rogue Agent, and the Mishap: The Hidden Dangers of Carnivore’’. Available online: www.stopcarnivore.org Google Scholar
  46. Strauss, A.Y. 2002A constitutional crisis in the digital age: Why the FBI’s ‘Carnivore’ does not defy the Fourth AmendmentCardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal20231258Google Scholar
  47. Tountas, S. W. 2003Carnivore: Is the regulation of wireless technology a legally viable option to curtail the growth of cybercrimeWashington University Journal of Law and Policy11351377Google Scholar
  48. Tyson, J. (2003) “How Carnivore Works’’. Available online: www.howthingswork.com United States v. Katz (1967). 389 U.S. 347. Google Scholar
  49. Vlahos, KB. (2001). “FBI Seeking to Wiretap Internet’’. Available online: www.foxnews.com Google Scholar
  50. Voors, M.P. 2003Encryption regulation in the wake of September 11, 2001: Must we protect national security at the expense of the economyFederal Communications Law Journal55331350Google Scholar
  51. Walters, R. 2003New modes of governance and the commodification of criminological knowledgeSocial and Legal Studies12526Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holly E. Ventura
    • 1
  • J. Mitchell Miller
    • 1
  • Mathieu Deflem
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South CarolinaUSA

Personalised recommendations