The FDA Demonstrates What “Targeting” Does

“They think they can be the Gestapo and do anything they want.” — Chuck Grassley, on learning his staffer’s emails had been surveilled by the FDA

It is utterly predictable that members of Congress only get concerned about heavy-handed surveillance when they get sucked up in the surveillance. And so it is that Chuck Grassley, who voted for the FISA Amendments Act, and Chris Van Hollen, who didn’t, are outraged that their offices have been dragged into the FDA’s invasive surveillance used to conduct a leak investigation.

The surveillance started in response to a belief that FDA scientists, upset that their concerns about the safety of medical diagnostic equipment had been overridden, leaked classified proprietary information to the NYT. But after targeting just 5 scientists suspected of the leak, the FDA developed profiles on 21 people thought to be conspiring against the agency.

What began as a narrow investigation into the possible leaking of confidential agency information by five scientists quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process, according to the cache of more than 80,000 pages of computer documents generated by the surveillance effort.

Moving to quell what one memorandum called the “collaboration” of the F.D.A.’s opponents, the surveillance operation identified 21 agency employees, Congressional officials, outside medical researchers and journalists thought to be working together to put out negative and “defamatory” information about the agency.

Mind you, Grassley and Van Hollen’s aides (and Van Hollen himself) were not themselves the targets of the leak investigation. The scientists were the targets. But since they were communicating with the scientists, their communication–some of it protected by law–were collected, “incidentally.” And having convinced themselves a leak had happened and a conspiracy was afoot, the FDA continued its collection program, even after the FDA’s Inspector General determined no law was broken and the Special Counsel started investigating the retaliation against the scientists.

Precisely the same thing can happen under FAA in the name of national security: people are targeted based on a suspicion, and those they communicate with, even for legitimate purposes, get sucked into the trap. That is, this is precisely the problem with the FAA, which Grassley, at least, is prepared to reup for another 4 years.

And precisely the same thing has and continues to happen as agencies put their concerns about classification ahead of whistleblower concerns. This story is not so different from what happened to Thomas Drake, with members of Congress targeted, whistleblowers punished, and the underlying complaint ignored.

On that point, the NYT leaves two questions left unanswered in their important article on the FDA surveillance: it doesn’t make clear whether the medical devices–mammogram and colonoscopy imaging devices–are still out there on the market, exposing Americans to too much radiation.

And while the NYT does include the FDA’s two different attempts to justify this surveillance, it doesn’t tell us where are the people who put the FDA’s institutional interests above the safety of the American people.

We are all already at risk of this kind of surveillance given the way FAA is structured. This instance, because it’s only about General Electric’s security rather than “national security,” might actually provide an opportunity to talk about how inappropriate this kind of surveillance is, both in other workplaces, and when our government targets us in the name of national security.

But it probably won’t happen.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

10 Responses to The FDA Demonstrates What “Targeting” Does

Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV @HayesBrown It was never in doubt.
36sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @michaelbd But would they sell petro in dollars?
40mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BaFana3 Isn't Libya self-clusterfucking to a greater degree? Yemen may have already shot past it.
40mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @Pedinska Not sure. We will watch him carefully for a few weeks. Neighbor's horse had two recently.
43mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @Pedinska It was about a half inch diameter, at least.
51mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Sure. If I were involved in that I'd point out that this is the second time version of this got "leaked" to AP. @Thomas_Drake1
1hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Craziest inside the park homer ever. Goes as blown save.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV LSU up by one in ninth, two outs. Batter hits ball, left fielder dives & misses. All Anerican shortstop tries to bail him out, sits on ball.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Thomas_Drake1 Don't think it's to shift narrative. It's to lead us to believe they're going to end phone dragnettery in June. @BradMossEsq
1hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV At this point, no reporter should ever interview Rick Pitino without a clove of garlic and wooden stake at the ready.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CasparBowden I suspect one big issue is doing dragnetty things usable w/smart devices, which is more 702-like production. @korch
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CasparBowden No. But extant OLC memo says NSA can do it w/voluntary production. Just need to get "voluntary" compliance @korch
2hreplyretweetfavorite