Sometimes companies keep tabs on employees by hiding cameras in lavatories, or tracking company cars using hidden GPS devices. Most often, however, corporate surveillance consists of logging everything employees do on their computers, from instant messaging, to emailing to browsing the web. Such wholesale monitoring is commonplace at firm such as household products maker Procter & Gamble, Bank of America, net giants Yahoo and Google, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente. And people are seldom told they are being watched.

Meanwhile, an increasingly mobile workforce is blurring the line between work and private time: log into work computers from home and employers can track what blogs you create, sign into or post to, or what you write on newsgroups, even outside work hours. Suddenly, online private lives are becoming company business.

Kaiser spokesman Matthew Schiffgens thinks workplace internet monitoring by IT departments is fair enough. "If something you're doing [on your work PC] isn't related to work, you shouldn't do it," he says. Yahoo's employee handbook echoes this: "Management, or a designee, may review or monitor email messages and traffic, review records of telephone usage, and inspect the contents of file cabinets, disk drives, desks, offices, etc (even if locked)."

According to Jeremy Gruber, legal director of the National Workrights Institute based in Princeton, New Jersey, US companies can legally watch everything employees do - and only two states require employers to tell workers they are under surveillance. Yet there are laws that prevent employers from listening to employees' personal phone calls made at work. So why no such protection for employees who might send a personal email or check an online auction's status during their lunch break?

"Legislatures are slow to address changes in technologies," Gruber says. "There's simply been no federal response to the problem of computer monitoring."

In this regulatory vacuum, a sizable industry has sprung up to offer software that monitors employees. One leader in the field, Wavecrest Computing of Melbourne, Florida, sells a product called Cyfin that tracks everything employees do online. Clients include oil giant ExxonMobil, UK telecoms firm BT and the US Department of Justice. Wavecrest spokesman Dennis McCabe says Procter & Gamble is also one of its largest customers. "They watch all 100,000 of their employees around the world with our products," McCabe says. Wavecrest's product could also help P&G managers prepare regular reports on what kinds of websites employees are visiting, and can also provide detailed analyses of unproductive workers.

Sandstorm Enterprises of Malden, Massachusetts, markets a sophisticated monitor called Net Intercept that watches all network traffic, not just web usage. However, Sandstorm chief James Van Bokkelen says it's impossible for IT managers to watch everything; instead, they focus on gathering evidence on the few individuals who are already a problem, sometimes resulting in firings. "Employers have their lists of suspects," he says.

Companies use more devious means than just software, though, as Clifton Swigert, a former employee of West Virgina power company Allegheny Electric, knows to his cost. He was fired after anonymously posting some views about the company in a Yahoo discussion forum. "It was the most horrific thing I ever experienced," recalls Swigert. "I had perfect attendance for 13 years at the plant."
Anonymous no more

Swigert had vented his frustration about the company's retirement programme, and admits he "used some poor language" to complain about a diversity workshop. What he said may have offended some, but he wrote it anonymously, used his own computer and wrote long after work hours. The board where he posted was specifically for discussions of Allegheny Electric, and many of the hundreds of comments left by other people were also derogatory and critical.

Nevertheless, Allegheny decided to track down the anonymous poster and sue them. The lawsuit meant Allegheny could subpoena Yahoo and obtain Swigert's real name, but once they had it they dropped the lawsuit and fired him. In a counter-suit filed last year, Swigert's attorneys claimed this action was an abuse of legal process, but there has been no ruling yet.

At issue here is a special kind of US subpoena for "subscriber information" that opens the door for cases like Swigert's. It requires online service providers to supply lawyers with a subscriber's real name and address. The catch is that neither the lawyers nor the service provider are required to notify the subscriber that this information has been revealed. So some may be fired without ever knowing why, says Paul Levy, an attorney with civil liberties group Public Citizen. Others may know why, says Levy, but since they never get representation their cases go unreported.

Of course, another place where companies can track employees' activities outside the office is on blogs, and it is becoming more common for firms to issue a "blog policy" to employees, detailing what dirty washing the company doesn't want aired. Bank of America spokeswoman Lisa Kopp says personal blogs that breach company policy can lead to a person being fired.

Blogging policies have become widespread in the wake of several high-profile cases in Silicon Valley in which bloggers lost their jobs. Among those was Joyce Park, fired by social networking site Friendster two years ago. Park is the author of a popular blog called Troutgirl, which covers everything from high-tech issues to Park's cat. She marvels at the weirdness of the experience. "I was taken to a room, told it was a termination meeting, and told the reason was blogging," she recalls. "I asked what they objected to and they wouldn't tell me. I really just have no idea what I might have said."

Another blogger fired around the same time was Mark Jen, who lost his job at Google. He's still not sure what he said, though the company did ask him to take two Google-related posts off his blog shortly before his firing. He took the posts down right away, but apparently that wasn't enough.

Not that Google - which runs the blog engine Blogspot - is against blogging. Karen Wickre, editor of Google's corporate blog, says the firm likes to hire bloggers because it's "nice to know that they can put a couple of sentences together". So does does Google makes a regular habit of reading people's blogs before hiring them? "We're always looking for good people with talent," Wickre says. "I'm not willing to make a blanket statement that blogs don't matter."

Others think blogs are beginning to matter a whole lot. David Nachman of background-screening company HireRight based in Irvine, California, agrees with Wickre that a job-seeker's blog might affect their chances of getting hired. Traditionally, HireRight has only provided criminal record checks and checks on qualifications and experience, but Nachman says interest in online activity is growing. "We don't offer this service yet, but it's absolutely already happening. Employers are going to blogs and social networking sites when hiring."

In effect this means that online monitoring may be starting before employees even sign their contracts. While some will find this shocking, many tech workers express a kind of fatalism. "There are always ways to find out what individuals are doing, and sometimes that results in people getting fired," says IT administrator John Gilbert. "Everywhere I've worked, there's never been any privacy."

From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 30-31

However, UK watchdog group Privacy International says that so far "the act has been ineffective". Bloggers are at risk, too: last year, Joe Gordon was sacked from bookshop Waterstone's after 11 years there, for things he posted on his satirical blog.

In Australia, legislation in New South Wales requires employers to tell employees if they are under any kind of surveillance. However, the law does not regulate the level or type of spying, it just says that employees must be told about it. Electronic surveillance of Australian workers is on the rise, according to Canberra-based internet research firm Caslon Analytics, but there are as yet no national laws that limit monitoring of employees' use of email and the internet.

DPA supporters and others who opposed this outrageous bill called their members of Congress this week to express their disapproval. However, House leaders circumvented the usual legislative procedure to bring the bill to a quick vote. It did not pass through the committee process, but went straight to the House floor. There, it was passed by a simple voice vote, so constituents cannot even find out how their Representative voted.

The bill moves next to the Senate, but it is unlikely to be considered there this session.

Bill Piper, DPA's director of national affairs, said, "It looks like this bill was rushed to the House floor to help out the sponsor, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY/4th), who is in a tight re-election race. This vote lets him say he's getting things done in Washington. But I would be surprised to see a similar push in the Senate."

HR 5295 is opposed in its current form by several groups, including the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National School Boards Association.

DPA will be watching the bill so that if and when it does come up again, this wide array of opponents can mobilize to stop it.

It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.

So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.

Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.

Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.

It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place."

It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.

The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.

Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.

Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."

If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.

By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It's that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.

In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.

That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.

originally published on www.truthout.org

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.

President Bush claimed that the arrests of terrorist conspirators in England were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," and referred to an "Islamic fascism ... totalitarian in nature" in Lebanon and elsewhere.

This raises the question: exactly what is fascism? What is served by the application of this term to Muslim fundamentalists-does this help clarify history or deepen our understanding of current events, which is the goal of historians like myself?
Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no." There may be a superficial resemblance between European fascism of the first half of the twentieth century-the heyday of those movements-and al-Qaeda and other such groups. They each subscribe to right-wing beliefs and favor violence to achieve their ends. But this is about as deep as the similarities run, and there are many dozens of organizations and ideologies of recent history that share those broad characteristics.

FUZZY USAGE

More instructive are the many differences between fascism and political, fundamentalist Islam. Nationalism is always at the center of fascism, while the Islamist groups seek allegiance along trans-national, religious lines. Groups like Hamas or Hizbullah do not glorify the state, another defining feature of fascism. The European fascists (as well as fascist movements in Latin America and elsewhere) were secular, and only occasionally invoked the symbols or traditions of religion.

While some fascists, like Mussolini, harkened back to the glories of Rome, fascism has always had a modernizing thrust, shrouding its reactionary ideology in rationalism and science. This also sharply distinguishes it from modern fundamentalist Islamists, who exalt Islamic law (their interpretation of it, that is) and long for a return to a "golden age" that never really existed.

Further, the term "Islamic fascism" implies that this new "fascism" is rooted in the Islamic faith, which is patently untrue. And finally, we cannot understand the popular appeal of a group like Hizbullah - which draws much of its support for its nationalist resistance to Israeli policy, especially during the 18-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in 2000 - by simply labeling it "fascist."

There have, however, been a handful of political movements in the Middle East that did resemble fascism, such as Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party. But Hussein's regime was militantly secular, and it's also worth remembering that its semi-fascist politics and heinous crimes did not prevent U.S. administrations of the 1980s from providing it with political and economic support. And the term "Islamic fascism" encompasses a large variety of parties and movements that, like Hussein's Ba'athists and bin Laden's al-Qaeda, have little in common, and are often sharply at odds.

MARKETING IRAQ

So what is served by the bandying about of this misleading term? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the true aim is simply to inflame opinion, at a time when support for the war on Iraq is waning. Fewer Americans are willing to accept the linkage, so often suggested by Cheney and others, between the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The horrifying human costs of this misguided adventure are also harder for us to ignore. So with the November elections on the horizon, it's time to try out a new strategy to market the war.

"Islamic fascism" also is being used to bludgeon critics of the administration's war against Iraq. Invoking the "fascist" menace, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently accused his critics of "moral and intellectual confusion." He and other Bush spokespeople have linked antiwar sentiment with the appeasement of Hitler by European diplomats in the 1930s, a particularly outrageous parallel.

More than ever, we need reasoned and informed debate and reflection. Overheated and cynical oratory does not help, and we can appreciate the inhumanity of terrorism without equating it with Hitler. And as a historian, I believe we should try to learn more about the true nature and crimes of fascism and Nazism - crimes that are diminished by the indiscriminate use of those terms.

John Cox is assistant professor of European history at Florida Gulf Coast University.