BrianBurns.com

Civil Rights

Expect the Unexpected and Other Advice for Weathering this Election

I probably don’t need to convince you that we are in for a bumpy next few months. Health experts are urging us to brace for a surge in Covid infections and death. The climate nightmare is turning into a fiery reality. Government officials are telling followers to stockpile ammunition. All this combined with RBG’s tragic death means there is barely bandwidth for the media to report on the latest mass shooting. In order to mentally prepare for the next few months it is crucial to take a step back and ask - what happens next?

wild fires
Wildfires on the west coast continue to destroy property decrease air quality.

Whatever happens, it will be easier to deal with if we have given it some forethought. The most obvious thing to focus on is the election on November 3rd, but if 2020 has taught us anything so far, it’s that unexpected events can change everything in an instant. Here are a few things to be mentally prepared for.

Covid gets really ugly. The virus might survive a little bit longer in the cold air. People may be slightly more likely to congregate inside or slightly less diligent with masking. Each of these can increase the spread.

Panic buying of food, ammunition, and toilet paper. The empty shelves we all experienced at the beginning of the pandemic could again become a reality.

Another police murder. Protests over the police murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Elija McClean, and others have waned in numbers and intensity since the peak this summer. Another episode of police violence could very easily bring people back to the streets.

George Floyd protests in Seattle, June 2020.
Massive protests across the country followed the police murder of George Floyd.

Normalization of police checkpoints. If protests re-erupt, authorities may crack down hard. Bill Bar has suggested charging protestors with sedition. Chicago already has a habit of shutting down all major entrances to the city, raising bridges, and blockading intersections downtown.

False Flag Event. A false flag operation is an act of violence committed with the intention of pinning blame on someone else. It is used by political actors to gin up support for war or as an excuse to take away civil liberties from their opponents domestically. Hitler famously set parliament on fire and then used it as an excuse to assume dictatorial powers.

Spontaneous Political Violence. This has already occurred. At least 17 people have died amid the unrest following George Floyd's murder.

Organized Political Violence. Aside from seemingly random violence, there is the additional threat of organized violence. By this I mean people organizing themselves for the purpose of committing or threatening violence. Kyle Rittenhouse and the so called "patriot" militias who regularly show up to protests with assault rifles, bullet proof vests, and other tactical gear fall into this category.

Targeted Political Violence (real or perceived) - The assassination of any politician would send a shockwave through our system. But even a seemingly natural death could be problematic. The internet is already awash with outlandish conspiracy theories and second, third, and fourth level repercussions could be significant.

None of these are predictions. Each could potentially cause things to slip quickly out of control and this is exactly why we must think about them. The fact that we don't want them to happen does not mean that they won't. One of the most important things we can do right now is to talk about these possibilities with friends, family, and neighbors. We are all feelings these anxieties. We do not need to deal with them alone.

What I do predict is a very tense and long election season. Here are some specifics that I think are plausible or likely to occur. I’ve included my ballpark percentage likelihood for each, and where alternative outcomes are possible, I’ve labeled them A, B, C, etc.

1. More Democrats will vote by mail than Republicans (99%). This means many Democrat votes will not be counted until after election day

2. Violence on Election Day (20%). Long lines, frustrated voters, and a potentially heavy police presence could mean very high tensions on election day. A small fight could escalate to a violent arrest. An internet rumor regarding fraud could cause “patriot militias” to show up with guns to "protect" the election.

3A. Trump declares himself the winner on Election night (70%). If it appears he is ahead in the Electoral College on November 3rd, Trump will not wait to declare himself the winner. Biden's votes are more likely to come via the mail, so he is unlikely to concede.

3B. Trump declares the election was rigged on Election night (20%). If it appears he is behind in the Electoral College, Trump will declare that the election was rigged and therefore invalid.

3C. Trump concedes on election night (10%). If there is a clear landslide on election night, Trump may be forced do concede if his inner circle, Senate Republicans, and/or military leaders force his hand.

if no one concedes, continue to step 4

4A. Election officials or courts eventually declare Trump winner (25%). Biden will likely concede. There may be sporadic violence, which Trump will crush with an iron fist.

4B. Election officials or courts eventually declare Biden winner and there is a peaceful transition of power (20%). Having declared himself the winner, Trump tweets angrily for weeks as votes are counted. Finally declared the loser, hey may call for violence, but Twitter and facebook quickly shut down his account before anyone acts on it. His generals march into his office and inform him he will be removed by force if necessary. He reluctantly concedes.

4C. Election officials or courts eventually declare Biden the winner and there is a period of turmoil and sporadic violence followed by a Biden presidency (25%). Unfortunately, I think this is the most likely end game. I don’t believe Trump will concede under any circumstance. I think he will call for “patriots” to rise up against the evil democrats. If he loses the physical fight, eventually Trump might concede, perhaps making a deal to avoid prosecution as a traitor.

4D. Civil War (5%). There is no shortage of people advocating for a civil war already. Ammunition and guns are sold out across the country. The only reason this percentage isn’t higher is because I've retained an irrational optimism that cooler heads will prevail.

4E. Intervening Event (10%). I make no attempt to describe what this event could be. Let’s call it the 2020 wild card scenario. It could be a natural disaster, a false flag operation, or a spontaneous popular uprising. It could calm the situation or enflame it. Whatever it is, it could change the landscape in an instant.

Things do not look good. There are still paths forward, but we cannot afford to live in denial. Only one presidential candidate has clearly and unequivocally denounced political violence of any kind. The other has a history of encouraging violence and demonizing opponents as evil scum.

As Maya Angelou put it, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." We cannot wish our way into calmer waters. We must stare the ugliness in the face, buckle down, and weather this storm, together.

Tech-Enabled Authoritarianism: 3 Things Every American Must Recognize Now

Full blown authoritarianism takes many forms, which makes it difficult to define. Still, oppressive regimes historically share common characteristics. They all control their populations actions and thoughts through a mix of surveillance, propaganda, and violence. Most are all ruled by a single individual or small group of elites who lie, cheat, intimidate, and use brute force if necessary to maintain power. Undemocratic governments around the world are arming themselves with powerful technology. This enables mass oppression with an efficiency that the murderous dictators of the 20th century could only have dreamed of.

Surveillance in the 21st century will combine old techniques and new technologies.
Police using a telescopic lens to photograph every counter-protester at a recent pro-Trump rally in Wrigleyville.

I recently took a close look at the particular question of aerial drone surveillance and how it can become a powerful tool for oppression. Here’s what I’ve learned.

It is important to remember that the U.S. Constitution safeguards against authoritarianism in two ways. First, it divides and limits the powers of the government. Second, it explicitly names several rights belonging to every individual. The government is forbidden from violating these rights, one of which is our Constitutional right to privacy. Privacy is crucial to the free exchange of ideas. Without it, we risk self-censorship by limiting our thoughts and actions to those deemed acceptable by the regime. Once the modern surveillance tools are entrenched and accepted by a population, it's merely a matter of, "flipping the switch," from the psychological influence of an all-seeing eye to the outright oppression of an iron fist.

The tools available to the modern surveillance state are immense and precise. These technologies include smart networks of thousands of cameras, mass capture of phone and internet data, ubiquitous facial recognition, automatic tracking of every license plate on public roads, and missile-launched drone swarms called LOCUSTS that can both perform surveillance and deliver explosive payloads. These technologies are already widely used in China as it methodically perfects the art of totalitarianism in the 21st century. At the same time, U.S. law enforcement agencies are procuring Chinese equipment and - presumably - training in how to use these tools of oppression.

Exactly how these technologies are deployed against the American public is shrouded in secrecy. In Chicago, the police have a long history of spying on citizens. They’ve used signal intercepting technologies to spy on the cell phones of peaceful organizers. They've tortured an unknown number of people at a secret black site. They maintain a controversial “gang database” to track people and their relationships with near-zero transparency. At a recent protest, they formed a ring around demonstrators and then ordered them to disperse – a tactic called kettling. Eventually, they forced every protestor to exit through a narrow opening in the wall of police, taking video and searching their bags as they left. The chilling effect these techniques have on free speech and expression threaten the foundations of our free society.

Unlike many states, Illinois does have a law intended to protect our privacy rights from aerial surveillance. The law bans the use of drones by law enforcement except for specific situations: to counter terrorism, if they have a warrant, if they have reasonable belief that quick action is needed to prevent harm, if they are looking for a missing person, or if they are using it for crime scene or traffic crash scene photography. It is easy to see how these exceptions could be broadly interpreted to make the ban meaningless. We have no reason to presume the Chicago Police Department, which has failed to meet 70% of its deadlines under a Federal Consent Decree, would exercise restraint in this area. The law also has a reporting requirement, but this appears to be openly flouted by law enforcement agencies as well.

Specifically, the law requires every law enforcement agency in Illinois to report the number of drones they own to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. This agency, which consists mainly of law enforcement and court officials, is required to publish an annual report detailing which law enforcement agencies own drones and how many. Surprisingly, of the 877 law enforcement agencies in Illinois, only 20 reported owning a drone in the 2020 report. Considering the potential usefulness for law enforcement, it seems highly unlikely that so few law enforcement agencies are using drones. I requested clarification from CPD on twitter:

My initial request for clarification from he Chicago Police Department and the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority was ignored.

After getting no reply, I forwarded the question to several local elected officials (please like and retweet if you want answers too!):

Getting no response, I forwarded my question to Alderman Harry Osterman, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, Mayor Lori Lightfoot, the Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, my Illinois House Representative Kelly Cassidy, and my Illinois Senator Heather Steans.

One of them replied, and looped in the expert from our state legislature. The expert never replied, but my state representative did put this on her to-do list

This seemed too important to wait around on, so I made use of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Like many states, Illinois’ FOIA allows citizens to request records from government agencies. I filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Police Department on on July 30. The law requires agencies to reply within 5 business days unless they have a legally justifiable reason for an extension. Almost immediately, the CPD responded that they were extending their deadline by a week due to Covid. When the first week passed, they extended their deadline again in order to consult with another public body having a substantial interest in the request. 21 days later, I received their reply. The reply stated that CPD had no responsive records, and instead directed me to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and the Chicago Department of Aviation. This was the first time I’ve ever used the FOIA process, and while I have not yet received the substantive answers I was looking for, I have learned a lot. I will post an update when I get more information, but for now here are my important takeaways so far:

First, it seems highly unlikely that CPD is not using drones. A simple “no” does not take three weeks to formulate and does not require conference with other agencies. The FAA has a Law Enforcement Assistance Program (“LEAP”) that appears to be geared toward helping law enforcement agencies formulate and implement drone policies. More research is needed, but as of now, I would be very surprised if CPD were simply not using drones at all.

Second, the gaps in a poorly written law can make it useless. Illinois’ Freedom From Drone Surveillance Act does not apply to federal agencies like the FAA, FBI, or DHS. It does not prohibit law enforcement in Illinois from using information gathered by the feds or from non-law enforcement agencies like the Chicago Department of Aviation. The reporting requirement only applies to law enforcement agencies that own a drone. It does not take much creativity to imagine how this law could become worthless as a practical matter. Laws purporting to protect our privacy must keep pace with technology. If they fail to do so, they are toothless distractions that create a false sense of security. We cannot afford to be distracted.

Third, the separation of powers is only useful if each branch is playing an active role in protecting our rights. Police without oversight don’t protect our rights. Laws without enforcement don’t protect our rights. Politicians who fail to act with the urgency this moment demands certainly don’t protect our rights.

Authoritarianism in the 21st century will not take the same form that our founders fought a revolutionary war against. It will not require an explicit moment where all government powers pass to a single person, such as the Enabling Act did for Hitler prior to WWII. It can happen in the shadows of ambiguity. As governments around the world begin to leverage technology to build the police departments of the 21st century, we must be explicit about what is acceptable in a free society and what is not. We must be vigilant to ensure this historical moment does not slide into authoritarianism. We cannot afford to have any of us asleep at the wheel right now.

Scroll to Top