Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2367-1001480122-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24455 invoked by uid 510); 26 Sep 2001 04:55:41 -0000 Received: from n28.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.78) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 04:55:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2367-1001480122-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.52] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Sep 2001 04:55:22 -0000 X-Sender: fc@big.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 26 Sep 2001 04:55:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 80865 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2001 04:55:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Sep 2001 04:55:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 04:55:21 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id VAA09471 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:55:21 -0700 Message-Id: <200109260455.VAA09471@big.all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] [fc:In.Times.Like.These,.Security.Trumps.Privacy] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In Times Like These, Security Trumps Privacy A pending law giving authorities greater freedom to tap phones is alarming civil libertarians. We have more to fear from terrorists In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush Administration has moved quickly to ratchet up the powers of law-enforcement officials. A bill dubbed the Mobilizing Against Terrorism Act (MATA), introduced in the House and Senate on Sept. 19 and quickly wending its way through Congress, would give police investigators more leeway for electronic surveillance and searches, as well as strengthen their ability to confiscate the property of suspected terrorists. The hastily written bill has privacy advocates in a tizzy. But a close look reveals that many of the proposals, especially those involving broader electronic surveillance, make sense. In fact, the bill's wiretap measures, which aim to reduce the Administrative burden on law-enforcement officials, are long overdue. Even before this month's attacks, wiretap laws were in need of an overhaul (see BW Online, 8/23/01, "Wiretap Laws for a Wired World"). The legislation isn't a finished product -- more work still needs to be done on it to, among other things, fine tune its safeguards. But if Congress is mindful of protecting Americans against terrorism, it shouldn't shy away from swift action. Take the Justice Dept.'s proposal to allow law-enforcement agencies to get a single warrant to cover all of an individual or group's communication devices, including cell phones, work and home phones, and Internet connections. Existing laws require authorities to seek a separate warrant for each system. Having to secure separate warrants "has been a real hindrance to smooth operations long before last week," says Jason Pate, a terrorism expert at the Monterey Institute for International Studies. UNFORESEEN IMPLICATIONS? Another proposal, so-called "roving" wiretap warrants, also would go a long way toward cutting red tape. These would allow agents to apply for a countrywide wiretap order instead of asking a judge to issue a separate order for each geographic jurisdiction in an inquiry. Right now, if a suspect moves from Georgia to Florida, investigators need a new warrant for a wiretap. The proposed change would lessen the administrative burden on investigators chasing terrorists who move from state to state -- and what's wrong with that? In a Sept. 17 news conference, Attorney General John Ashcroft cited the "mobility of individuals" as the primary reason for the proposal. The Bush Administration isn't the only one with new plans for wiretap laws. On Sept. 13, the Senate passed an antiterrorist measure as part of a larger spending bill. That provision would allow investigators to avoid the courts and institute 48-hour wiretaps on suspected terrorists. The thinking behind this is simple: As the events of Sept. 11 show, every minute counts. Since warrants must be confirmed by a court within 48 hours, it's hard to see much risk in giving investigators this added power. Privacy advocates are nervous about the unforeseen implications of such changes. For example, will they mean that the FBI can tap the phones of an innocent person's home because he or she was seen with a suspicious individual? Privacy advocates also worry that the 48-hour unsupervised wiretap provision could lead to abuse. The authors of current wiretap law saw the courts as the main bulwark to prevent the government from letting clandestine activity run rampant, says Seton Hall University Law Professor Daniel Solove. "The 'trust us' idea is worthy," he says, adding: "But law enforcement also needs oversight." DEFINING TERRORISM. Defenders of privacy further argue that courts rarely deny wiretap requests. In 2000, federal judges approved 100% of 1,190 wiretap requests, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In fact, the only time since 1988 that a request was denied since 1988 came in 1996, when one of that year's 1,150 applications was disapproved. After the Sept. 11 attacks, judges probably will be even more open to aiding law-enforcement agencies. "I really think it's misleading to give the public the impression that government hands have been tied in investigating terrorism," says David Sobel, legal counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Still, in a time of national crisis it's important not to take such arguments too far. Most Americans -- myself included -- are now more afraid of the actions of a disparate network of terrorists than of the abuse of power by the federal government. Face it: Law-enforcement officials have neither the time nor the resources to eavesdrop on people they have no reason to suspect are involved in criminal activities. As Ira Somerson, president of security firm Loss Management, says: "Law enforcement needs these rights for all of our benefits. If it's written specifically and responsibly, I don't see why this law won't last for years to come." That said, it's important that the House and Senate bills, which are moving through Congress at the speed of light, receive a thorough once-over. First, it probably makes sense to limit the new wiretapping powers to the investigation of suspected terrorist activity. That will help alleviate concerns that such surveillance would be used against innocent citizens or lesser criminal threats. Second, the language of the legislation should specify more clearly under what circumstances a tap is permitted -- and whether probable cause is required to get it. The proposal also needs a clearer definition of what constitutes terrorism. Besides conspiracy, does it include crimes such as weapons trafficking? SECURITY TAKES PRECEDENCE. If Congress is really worried about making expanded police powers permanent, it could add a time limit to the measure, something known as a "sunset provision." That would allow legislators to tweak the law and hold hearings on its impact at a later date, when all sides could have their say. "Congress seems to be working under the 'just in case' principle. That's a big danger," argues Seton Hall's Solove, who worries that hasty legislation could backfire if a suspect is brought in under new laws that ultimately prove unconstitutional. The larger context, however, both now and probably for years to come, is that the U.S. needs to beat back terrorism. Privacy advocates are doing what they should -- trying to encourage healthy debate on an issue that has lasting implications for everyone. Legislators should heed their warnings to be aware of the long-term implications of broadening permissions for wiretaps. But for the moment, security takes precedence. We need laws that take full advantage of the Digital Age to combat what otherwise might become the Age of Terrorism. Black covers privacy issues for BusinessWeek Online. Follow her twice-monthly Privacy Matters ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/JNm9_D/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:49 PDT