Michelle Richardson [Legislative Counsel, ACLU]: "Just when you thought domestic spying power grabs had been put to rest for the duration of this Administration, the Justice Department has publicly announced its intent to go after one of the last existing hurdles between the government and our private lives: the simple requirement that we be suspected of some illegal activity before we become subject to investigation.

Domestic antiterrorism authorities have expanded greatly in the last seven years: the PATRIOT Act lowered the standard for obtaining wiretaps and records and reduced court oversight; the Attorney General Guidelines were amended to allow officers to patrol public places such as mosques; and the FISA Amendments act last month granted the government the authority to collect all international communications without a warrant, even if an American is on one end.

But the Justice Department wants more. It is proposing that the Attorney General's Guidelines governing criminal and intelligence investigations on US soil be amended so that they no longer require some indication of criminal activity before an investigation is commenced.

Even worse, the Justice Department is also preparing to amend federal regulations that prevented local and state law enforcement from engaging in this sort of suspicionless investigation. With over 700,000 state and local officers, this change could reach even deeper into the daily lives of Americans. Even those of us who may have very little interaction with federal law enforcement have regular and repeated contact with the local police and sheriff's office. How many times a day does a cop car pass by your office or your home?

How would this work on a practical level? The government, whether state, local or federal, would still have to abide by the laws on the books when it comes to tapping your phone, searching your home or accessing your records. However, they'd have free reign to do whatever they want short of those activities — which includes a lot. They could talk to your neighbors and coworkers. They could follow you around. They could sit in on the peaceful meetings of community organizations you attend.

What are the real consequences? Well, the most obvious is that law enforcement will have a green light to racially profile. Although the Attorney General recently testified that race alone would never be the basis of surveillance or investigation, we know that the Justice Department has sanctioned a list of completely innocent activities that create "suspicion" of being a terrorist, such as taking pictures and drawing sketches. In the end, race + innocent activity = racial profiling. Imagine two tourists taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty. Is the local cop, subject to all the fearmongering in our culture, going to follow the middle aged white woman or the twenty-something male with dark skin?

Another consequence is that law enforcement will return to its pre-Watergate activities of surveilling peaceful protests and organizations that threaten mainstream values or institutions, even when there is no indication that the groups or individuals will commit a crime or an act of violence. The ACLU has documented this practice all over the country since September 11. The ACLU has also documented how so-called "fusion centers" not only facilitate the sharing of information, but effectively encourage over-collection. For example, just last month, records confirmed that Maryland law enforcement had infiltrated an anti-death penalty group and monitored their meetings for 14 months, even after the undercover officer reported that there was no indication that the group was dangerous. Such misguided efforts will only increase once the Justice Department lifts the ban on such suspicionless intelligence gathering.

FBI Director Mueller will be before the Judiciary Committees next month and Congress should demand to know how both of these new investigative opportunities are intended to work. Why does law enforcement insist on collecting innocent information? What is the use of burying relevant information under irrelevant information? Some Senators have started raising red flags and we can only hope for more.

But beware. These changes are likely to sail through in the very near future. We can only hope that the new Congress and the new President will make ending these sorts of civil liberties violations a priority."