Asset Protection BLOG - Mark Nestmann

Scalia: You Can Invade My Privacy—but I Don't Have to Like It

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't think you have a right to privacy in most aspects of your life.  But he doesn't care to have his own privacy invaded—although he admits it's perfectly legal.

Back in January, Scalia spoke at a privacy conference organized by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law.  While his speech wasn't recorded (apparently at his own insistence), one of his remarks was a statement to the effect:

"Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly."  Some information should remain private, "but it doesn't include what groceries I buy."

Scalia also said he wasn't bothered by anyone tracking him on the Internet.  "I don't find that particularly offensive…I don't find it a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful."

Taking a cue from Scalia's remarks, Fordham Law Professor Joel Reidenberg decided to give the students in his Information Privacy Law class a special assignment: find everything they could about  Scalia on the Internet, and compile a dossier on him.  Among other findings, students discovered Scalia's home address and home phone number, his wife's personal e-mail address, and his food and entertainment preferences.

Scalia's reaction wasn't surprising.  He didn't like having this information published.  Said Scalia:

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

Well, well.  Nothing like being dressed down by a Supreme Court justice! 

But perhaps Justice Scalia should give the matter some more consideration.  Not everything that should remain private, for instance, is shameful.  Your bank account transaction data may not be shameful (well, perhaps it is…), but that doesn't mean anyone should be able to view it.  Nor is your Social Security number shameful—but it's not a good idea to broadcast it to potential identity thieves.

Still, the most revealing portraits come from not just one or two data points, but the aggregation of volumes of data, all freely available to anyone who cares to gather it.  Taken together, this information paints a remarkably detailed portrait of "you."  And it's perfectly legal to compile, even if, as the good Justice Scalia reminds us, the person gathering it, or using it, may be exercising "bad judgment." 

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

Click here to learn 109 ways you can begin to use today to protect what's left of your privacy

How Secure is Your RFID Passport? Not Very…

Once upon a time, an enterprising thief who wanted to steal your passport had to take the actual document from you.  But with today's "ultra-secure" RFID passports, a thief merely needs to be somewhere close to you, equipped with the proper electronics.

Using a device that one researcher bought on eBay for US$250, you too can create ultra-secure RFID passports.  Driving along Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, the researcher captured—and cloned—a half-dozen RFID chips used in these passports in less than an hour.

True, the RFID chips he cloned weren't the same as the ones in an ordinary U.S. passport.  They're used in the new "passport cards" the U.S. Department of Homeland Security now issues for travel to and from Western Hemisphere countries.  Some U.S. states have also issued high-tech driver's licenses incorporating these chips.

But ordinary passports are vulnerable as well.  Last summer, security researchers in the United Kingdom demonstrated how to clone RFID-equipped U.K. passports and accepted as genuine by the computer software recommended for use at international airports.  After cloning the chips, the researchers implanted digital images of Osama bin Laden and a suicide bomber.  Then they tested the "passport" using passport reader software used by the U.N. agency that sets standards for e-passports.  It passed with flying colors.

Naturally, this should be viewed as progress, according to government security experts.  Here's what the U.S. Department of State has to say about RFID passports:

"The [RFID] chip securely stores the same data visually displayed on the photo page of the passport, and additionally includes a digital photograph. The inclusion of the digital photograph enables biometric comparison, through the use of facial recognition technology, at international borders. The U.S. e-passport also has a new look, incorporating additional anti-fraud and security features."

Got that?  Since the government says the passport is secure, it is secure!  Doesn't that make you feel better?

Hopefully, Osama and his ilk won't be carrying cloned British or U.S. passports anytime soon.  But even if not, the ability to clone the RFID chip on your passport makes you vulnerable to identity theft.  Here's how it might happen.

You check in to a hotel managed by a criminal.  When you take out your RFID passport to identify yourself, a hidden RFID scanner captures the data.  Now your name, digital photo, and biometric data can be cloned and sold over the Internet to the highest bidder. 

To protect yourself, consider the following precautions:

• If you have one of the new DHS "passport cards" or a driver's license with an RFID chip, keep the card wrapped in foil except when you need to present it at a border crossing.  That makes it less vulnerable to remote cloning.
• Also, when you check into a hotel, rent a vehicle, or carry out any other transaction abroad that requires you to present your passport, try not to let it out of your sight.  Unless a hidden remote scanner is present, that way your data is less likely to be cloned.  This may be easier said than done; some hotels (particularly smaller ones) insist on holding on to visitors' passports until checkout.  If you offer to pay in advance, the hotel may relent on this requirement.

Unfortunately, I can't recommend the most effective self-defense mechanism: to put your RFID passport in a microwave oven and switch it on for a few seconds.  That will destroy the RFID chip, but tampering with a passport is punishable by 25 years in prison.  Compared to that, identity theft is a small price to pay.

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

Don't Get Caught in a War with the Wrong Passport!

As fighting intensified in the Gaza Strip, Israel last Friday began allowing individuals possessing a foreign passport to leave the crowded Palestinian territory.  Hundreds left before Israel's ground forces invaded the Gaza Strip the next day.

They were the fortunate ones. Ordinary Palestinians have few options to escape the war zone.  Gaza is surrounded on three sides by Israel, and on the fourth by Egypt.  Both countries have closed all border crossings.  And while the Palestine governing authority issues a passport, Palestinians can't use it to leave Gaza.  Only Palestinians fortunate enough to possess a non-Palestinian passport can leave.

Even in better times, a Palestinian passport isn't an ideal travel document.  Only a handful of countries recognize it, although more than 100 countries have diplomatic ties with Palestine.  Even when the borders are open, persons carrying a Palestinian passport must negotiate a labyrinth of legal requirements to depart legally.  And, they may not be allowed to return. 

How you would react if the country you live in now became a war zone?  Would the authorities allow you to leave your own country?  Or, as in Gaza, would you become a virtual prisoner?  Further, what would you do if your own country—or an authority controlling access to it—wouldn't allow you to return home?

One way to protect yourself from this possibility—and to obtain many other benefits—is to obtain a second passport.  If you don't qualify for a second passport by virtue of your ancestry or your marital status, you can purchase one from a handful of countries that offer "economic citizenship."   The Commonwealth of Dominica, the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis, and Austria all have official, legally mandated, economic citizenship programs.  To qualify under any of them, you must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check. 

The least expensive option is to obtain economic citizenship from Dominica. Under this country's economic citizenship program, you may acquire citizenship and passport in return for a cash contribution.  Total costs including all fees for a single applicant come to about US$103,000.  Add US$25,000 if you need a passport for your spouse and up to two children under 18.  Dominican passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to nearly 90 countries and territories.

In the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis, there are two ways to obtain economic citizenship.  The most practical strategy is to make a direct contribution.   Total costs including all fees for a single applicant under this option come to about US$215,000, or US$265,000 for an applicant with up to three dependents. Alternatively, you can purchase qualifying property worth a minimum of US$350,000. However, fees and taxes under this option are much higher than if you make a direct contribution.  St. Kitts & Nevis passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to more than 100 countries.

Finally, you may be able to obtain Austrian citizenship and passport after making a substantial investment in that country.  Unlike the programs in Dominica and St. Kitts & Nevis, in Austria, you must make your investment first and then apply for citizenship. You don't get your money back if you're not approved.  Generally, you must invest several million dollars to have a reasonable chance at qualifying, and pay legal fees of US$30,000 or more.  Austrian passport holders can travel to more than 120 countries visa-free and live and work in any of the 27 members of the European Union.

Other than giving you an "exit strategy" in case of domestic unrest, having a second passport and dual citizenship has numerous additional benefits. It can expand your travel possibilities, reduce your profile to terrorists, give you the right to reside in other countries, and give you a way to cross international borders if your primary passport is lost or stolen.  For Americans, a second passport has another benefit.  It is an essential prerequisite to expatriation; i.e., giving up U.S. citizenship in order to permanently disconnect from U.S. taxing authority.

The Nestmann Group, Ltd. can assist individuals seeking alternative citizenship and tax-advantaged residence. Please contact us for more information at info@nestmann.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Ruling by Decree: How Will President Obama Use his Authority to Issue "Executive Orders?"

One of the most important, yet least publicized, powers of the U.S. President is the authority to issue legally binding decrees, without the consent of Congress. 

Using an instrument known as an executive order, the president may, at the stroke of a pen:

• Freeze the U.S. property of any person, entity, or government
• Eliminate the right of habeas corpus and bring accused political criminals before military tribunals for trial
• Imprison or detain individuals or an entire class of people without trial
• Impose national banking "holidays" closing all U.S. banks or restrict and ration currency withdrawals and the cashing of checks or drafts.
• Shut down domestic stock and commodity exchanges
• Investigate, regulate, or prohibit the importing, exporting, or holding of currency, securities, or precious metals
• Impose punitive taxes on inbound or outbound foreign investments
• Impose wage and price controls

In the 230-year history of the United States, presidents have used all of these powers.  In just the last eight years, President George W. Bush has unilaterally frozen the assets of suspected terrorists, dramatically expanded surveillance of domestic communications, and detained hundreds of people without accusing them of any crime.

President-elect Obama campaigned on a platform of "change," but there is little assurance that he will be more judicious in his use of executive orders than George W. Bush.  That's because in a crisis—or a perceived crisis—executive orders are a convenient way to demonstrate to the American people that their president is "doing something" to deal with the problem.

In the Bush administration, of course, the "problem" was the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.  President-elect Obama still faces the specter of terrorism, of course, but the unraveling economy presents an even greater challenge.  And, especially if Congress doesn't go along with his domestic policy agenda, Obama may be tempted to draw on precedents set by previous presidents to "go it alone" via executive orders. For instance, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that temporarily closed all U.S. banks.  He issued another order that mandated the forced sale of all gold and silver held by U.S. persons. 

The best that we can probably hope for is that Obama will use his executive authority to undo the worst abuses of George W. Bush's penchant to rule by decree.  A few suggestions:

• Set a firm deadline for closing the prison camp for unindicted detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba
• Order the U.S. military and all executive agencies to comply with U.S. treaty obligations, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture.
• Order U.S. intelligence agencies to comply with domestic laws regulating warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of electronic communications.

Still, while hoping for the best, it's important to be prepared for the worst:

• Set up an offshore account if you haven't done so already.  If you already have one, it wouldn't hurt to add to it if you can afford to so. 
• Keep enough cash on hand to pay for at least a month's necessities if U.S. banks close down.  Store it securely at home or other private location, NOT in a safety deposit box.  Also keep some "junk silver" and small denomination gold coins on hand. (But keep the bulk of your precious metals holdings offshore.)
• Establish reserves of necessities, especially food and water.
• Upgrade the physical security of your home.

It's hard to imagine why anyone would want to be president as the United States heads into what may be the worst economic downturn in its history.  President-elect Obama made that choice, and I wish him the best.  But I'm preparing for the worst, and you should, too.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Big Brother, May I? Soon, You’ll Need Uncle Sam’s Permission to Travel Almost Anywhere

Last year, I wrote that if Uncle Sam gets its way, we’d all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us permission to leave—or re-enter—the United States.  That day has now arrived, but in addition to obtaining Big Brother’s permission to travel internationally, a final rule pursuant to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s “Secure Flight” initiative says we must now get it to travel from state-to-state.” 

For now, permission to travel applies only to air transport.  However, the TSA could of course extend it to train, bus, or auto travel anytime.  (Just imagine TSA checkpoints on interstates at every state border.)   And, while the TSA hasn’t announced the effective date of the rule, it did reveal what information it would need in order to leave, say, San Francisco, to fly to Las Vegas for a weekend on the Strip.

At some point in the future, you’ll need to reveal your name, gender, and date of birth when you make a domestic airline reservation.  The airline will contact TSA to determine if you’re cleared to board.  If you’re on any of TSA’s watchlists (which include such deceased “terrorists” as Saddam Hussein, along with live ones such as Sen. Edward Kennedy), you’ll need to provide an official document acceptable for federal identification purposes in order to travel.  Examples of acceptable identity documents are passports and the “enhanced” driver’s licenses required under the ill-fated “Real ID Act.”  If you can’t produce such a document, you can’t board the plane.

This is the first time the U.S. government has restricted the right of sovereign citizens to travel inside the United States since the Civil War.  And the TSA is imposing this restriction, despite numerous rulings from the Supreme Court indicating that you have a Constitutional right to travel.  According to the court, the right to travel is "not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional due process or equal protection standards," but "a virtually unconditional personal right."  International travel is specifically protected as well, for "Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood…Freedom of movement is basic to our scheme of values."

Further, the U.S. government has reiterated in its most recent report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee that, “…[I]n the United States, the right to travel—both domestically and internationally—is constitutionally protected."  Perhaps it’s time the government amend this declaration!

What this amounts to is essentially a reprise of the infamous "internal passport" system in effect in the former Soviet Union.  In 1933, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin introduced "internal passports" that prohibited Soviet citizens from leaving their place of residence without permission.  Over time, the internal passport became the prime instrument of Soviet oppression over its citizens.

It's bad enough needing to ask Uncle Sam for permission to leave the United States, and to reenter it.  But an internal passport is a blueprint for totalitarianism.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Since Sept. 11, 2001, it's become difficult to travel without subjecting yourself to intrusive surveillance.  However, it's still possible to travel privately, and in some cases, virtually anonymously.  Click here to learn how.

We Know Where You Are, Where You’ve Been, and Where You’re Going

First, it was radar guns.  Next came red light cameras, which took a photo both of your face and your license plate numbers.  And now, surveillance vendors are promoting an American “homeland security” system that would track you, wherever you drive.

If you think this technology is a pipe dream, think again.  It exists now, and will soon arrive in the United States. 

You can thank the United Kingdom for pioneering this system.  When fully implemented next year, the U.K.’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system will track nearly 500,000 vehicles daily through police cameras and CCTV systems.  As you drive between major cities and (especially) into a major metropolitan area, your license plate will be scanned and your identity matched against various U.K. databases. 

Should you be driving a “vehicle of interest,” it will be easy for police to detain and possibly arrest you.  And since the results will be archived for five years, investigators can subsequently trawl the database of billions of vehicle journeys for whatever purposes are deemed necessary. 

Such a system already exists in London, where it was installed to reduce traffic congestion.  Now, proponents justify it as a measure to fight terrorism, child pornography, and narcotics trafficking. 

In the United States, leading photo enforcement providers are promoting a similar program as a way for police to solve missing persons cases and reclaim stolen cars.  But behind the scenes, they’re advocating a much more ambitious network with capabilities that would equal or even exceed those being developed in the United Kingdom.

The potential for abuse is obvious.  And you don’t need to look far to find it.  In Canada, a police sergeant in Edmonton, Alberta decided to track the whereabouts of a journalist who had criticized the city’s photo radar operation.  Police followed the critic to a local bar, hoping to arrest him for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Unfortunately for police, the journalist took a taxi home.  Shortly thereafter, the plan became public knowledge after someone inside the police department leaked tapes of radio traffic to the press.

What politician might be silenced after the license numbers of both he and an alleged mistress are found at the same hotel?  What civil libertarian will feel compelled to stay at home rather than risk harassment by police if he drives his vehicle to a political rally?  The prospects for continued abuses are real, and growing rapidly.

One thing’s for sure.  Big Brother has literally taken to the roads.  If you want transportation privacy in this brave new world, buy a bicycle—or a good pair of hiking boots.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

RFID Tags Enable 24/7 Surveillance [Part II]

in my last blog entry, I described how states on the U.S. and Mexican borders have begun to issue "enhanced driver licenses," which can be used at U.S. border crossings in Mexico and Canada.  Each license incorporates a RFID tag encoded with a unique identification number.  The ID tag number on your license is associated with your identity.

I also described how corporate American plans to install a nationwide network of"person tracking units" (PTUs) everywhere that people go--from airports to shopping malls to museums. 

How do corporate America and the U.S. government plan to use the massive amounts of data gathered through RFID tags?  ssentially, to facilitate 24/7 surveillance of everything you do and everywhere you go.  Here's how I think it will work.

Even if the RFID tag contains no personally identifiable data, that doesn't matter.  That's because once the PTU establishes the link between your unique RFID number and your identity, "personal information will be obtained when the person uses his or her credit card, bank card, shopper card or the like."  Enhanced driver licenses are ideal for this purpose because they are compatible with scanners already in use by many large retailers.

Corporate America plans to aggregate this data and use it to make better decisions about how to market specific products to specific individuals.  Based on your RFID profile, for instance, you might see the type of personalized advertising pitches that were a staple of the movie "Minority Report" (highly recommended).  But naturally, this data would also be available for government inspection as well…and there's the real danger. 

Consider how China plans to use RFID tags.  The new high-tech Chinese national ID card contains a record of the cardholder's employment status, ethnicity, health and reproductive history, and even religion.  Plans are underway to use these cards in conjunction with state-of-the-art CCTV and related surveillance technologies in Chinese cities.  The primary goal of the program, according to a company manufacturing the RFID tags, is "for the government to control the population in the future."  The same potential exists in the United States or any other country that adopts this technology without careful consideration of the consequences.

What can you do to slow down the RFID juggernaut?  For starters, don't apply for an enhanced driver's license if the state you live in offers one.  And while you're at it, get involved in the effort to reduce RFID surveillance.  The most influential organization in this fight is CASPIAN—Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering.  Visit their Web site at http://www.nocards.org to learn more.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

RFID Tags Enable 24/7 Surveillance [Part I]

Are you ready to begin living a tagged life?  If you are, the future is here, courtesy of radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags.

Stage 1 of your tagged life is now here, in the form of new high-tech driver's licenses, which can be used at U.S. border crossings in Mexico and Canada.  Each license incorporates a RFID tag encoded with a unique identification number. 

As you approach a border crossing, a RFID reader sends out a signal that an antenna on the tag picks up.  The tag in turn reveals its ID number.  By the time you arrive at the border crossing, Customs agents already have your name, address, photo, and other details in front of them.

Ordinary U.S. passports also contain a RFID tag.  The only difference is that the tag can't be read remotely, at least in theory. 

States on the U.S. and Mexican border have now started to issue RFID-equipped licenses.  The state of Washington now issues an RFID tagged "enhanced driver license," which can be used for border crossings to and from Canada.  In the near future, Arizona, Michigan, New York, and Vermont will begin issuing them.

Although there's no law requiring you to obtain an enhanced driver license, once you sign up, you open the door to privacy invasion on an unprecedented scale.  That's because the RFID tag number on your license is associated with your identity.  Anyone with a RFID reader—an item you can pick up for a few hundred dollars—can interrogate the tag and access the data on it.  Combine that with the growing number of products which contain RFID tags—credit cards, ATM cards, cell phones, key cards, etc.—and the potential grows exponentially for surreptitious tracking, wherever you go.

Some people don't believe that's a problem.  I do, though, because the data on the RFID tags in enhanced drivers' licenses isn't encrypted.  An identity thief, a stalker, a private investigator, or anyone else who wants to learn your identity, and potentially match it to the growing array of data tied to your tag number, can remotely interrogate the tag with a simple RFID reader.  You won't even know when it happens. (In contrast, the data on the RFID tags in U.S. passports is encrypted--although hackers have already figured out how to clone the data).

Combine this potential for abuse with the huge plans corporations—and the government—have for "people tracking" via RFID tags, and the potential for 24/7 surveillance is obvious.  For instance, an IBM patent granted in 2006 describes a network of interconnected RFID readers that IBM calls "person tracking units" (PTUs).  IBM envisions installing PTUs everywhere that people go—in airports, shopping malls, sports arenas, theaters, etc.  According to the patent, the PTU network would "keep records of different locations where the person has visited, as well as the visitation times."

How do corporate America and the U.S. government plan to use the massive amounts of data gathered through RFID tags?  Essentially, to facilitate 24/7 surveillance of everything you do and everywhere you go.  I'll have more to say about that in my next blog entry...stay tuned.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Surprise, Surprise! U.S. Tracks All Border Crossings

One long-term goal of the War on (Some) Terrorists is to create a "lifetime travel history" of all U.S. citizens and visitors to the United States.

A critical component of the lifetime travel history is now in place: the Department of Homeland Security's "Border Crossing Information System" (BCIS).  This database will collect information on all U.S. citizens crossing a U.S. border by land.  It co-exists with existing databases that track U.S. citizens' air travel, and for foreigners entering the United States.  Operating together, these databases create a blueprint for a lifetime travel history for anyone crossing a U.S. border.

Naturally, the DHS may share data in the BCIS with federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governments.  And, although the BCIS is purportedly an anti-terrorist initiative, the DHS may release data to help enforce any civil or criminal law or regulation.  It can even share data with the news media, "when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information."

And of course, the entire system will be exempt from the Privacy Act.  That law would otherwise give you the right to know which law enforcement or intelligence agencies has reviewed your records, along with the right to correct errors or omissions in the database.

Instead of known or suspected terrorists, the government is tracking everyone who crosses a U.S. border.  And since there are no limits to how the government uses the data collected, the BCIS is almost certain to be used for politically motivated surveillance. 

That's particularly true with the new U.S. passports equipped with RFID chips.  The chips will eventually contain the final component of a lifetime travel history: a record not only of U.S. border crossings, but also of border crossings in other countries.  That feature soon will be added to the RFID chip in U.S. passports, according to standards issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).  The ICAO's technical standards for RFID chips in passports specifically reserve memory space for creating a log of border crossings or other situations in which the chip is queried. 

The potential for abuse is obvious.  Imagine that such a system existed now, and the DHS were to release data "in the public interest" that a leading presidential candidate had made previously undisclosed visits to Iran, North Korea, or Cuba.  Not to mention the sort of interrogations that would accompany visits to countries with reputations as tax havens, or that otherwise are "controversial."

Once this system is up and running, if you value your travel privacy, you won't want to use a U.S. passport when you travel internationally.  If you're a U.S. citizen, you must use your U.S. passport when you enter or leave the United States, but you're under no such obligation when you enter or leave other countries. 

Fortunately, it's still perfectly legal for U.S. citizens (and almost anyone else) to obtain a second passport.  The easiest way to qualify for one is based on your marital status, religion, or ancestry. 

A handful of countries also offer "instant" citizenship and passport in return for an economic contribution.  Dominica, St. Kitts/Nevis, and Austria are the only countries with such programs.  In all three countries, you must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check.

For more information on how to obtain a second passport—and preserve your right to travel privately—see http://nestmann.com/passport.html.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

America's "Long Arm" is Very Long Indeed

Have you committed a "tax crime"—or any other crime—that could be prosecuted in the United States?  If you have, you should know that there are few if any practical limits to U.S. jurisdiction if Uncle Sam wants to bring you before its courts. 

Whether it's through an extradition treaty, deportation, or even kidnapping, it's perfectly legal—at least under U.S. law—for U.S. authorities to take "any means necessary" to accomplish this goal.

The best-known method for the United States to bring someone from outside its territorial jurisdiction before its courts is via an extradition treaty.  The United States has extradition treaties in force with over 100 countries.  The largest countries that don't have extradition treaties with the United States are China, Indonesia, Russia, and South Korea. 

Extradition to the requesting country is subject to the laws, procedures, and policies of the requested country.  However, even if there is no extradition treaty in effect—or if the offense with which you are charged (e.g., violations of U.S. economic sanctions against particular countries) isn't covered in the particular treaty—the United States has numerous alternatives to bring you before its courts.

For instance, U.S. authorities might try to nab you when you travel internationally.  Let's say you're a Russian national who travels internationally on their Russian passport.  While you've never set foot in the United States, you have an e-mail account at G-Mail, a U.S.-based e-mail service.  Through this account, you've transacted considerable business with companies in Iran—a country against which the United States has imposed economic sanctions. 

Under U.S. law, using the G-Mail account may well provide U.S. prosecutors with jurisdiction to indict you for violations under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).  The fact you've never visited the United States won't prevent an indictment.  Nor will it prevent an increasing number of governments from extraditing you to the United States if you set foot there. 

For instance, the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty eliminates most evidentiary requirements for extradition.  Since the United States now reportedly has access to airline passenger manifests from persons flying into our out of the United Kingdom, it can easily screen these names against those persons it wants to extradite.  Should you fly from Moscow to London, it's possible that when you arrive, police will take you into custody and place you into detention.  Depending on the nature of your alleged offenses, you may—or may not—be able to avoid extradition to the United States.  Welcome to the USA!

The United States can also request that you be deported to its custody, so long as you are present in a particular country, if only for a brief visit.  For instance, when the U.S. Department of Justice wanted to bring offshore tax scammer Marc Harris to the United States from Nicaragua, it didn't use the U.S.-Nicaraguan extradition treaty.  Instead, it issued an Interpol notice, which many of Interpol's 186 members treat as a valid request for provisional arrest.  After arresting Harris, Nicaraguan authorities deported him to the United States, where he was subsequently tried and convicted for tax evasion and money laundering. 

What if you live in a country with no extradition treaty with the United States and never travel outside that country?  In that event, U.S. authorities can carry out an "extraordinary rendition" to bring you into U.S. custody.  This essentially amounts to sending undercover operatives into the country, kidnapping you, and bringing you back to the United States.  Numerous alleged "enemy combatants" now awaiting trial before military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba arrived via extraordinary renditions.  And, in case you wondered, the Supreme Court has blessed the practice of kidnapping criminal suspects, even where an extradition treaty is in effect. 

What should you do if you've been accused of a crime in the United States, but live elsewhere?  Certainly, you should hire a competent attorney in your own country to advise you of your options.  One option might be to approach the authorities in your own country and request that you be prosecuted under its laws.  The punishment may be much less than what you would face in the United States, and under most conditions, you can't be extradited for a crime for which you've already been tried. 

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann