[iwar] [fc:In.Times.Like.These,.Security.Trumps.Privacy]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-25 21:55:21
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:``clear.and.present.danger''.of.additional.terrorist.attacks]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Massive.search.reveals.no.secret.code.in.web.images]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200109260455.VAA09471@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
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/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:``clear.and.present.danger''.of.additional.terrorist.attacks]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Massive.search.reveals.no.secret.code.in.web.images]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:49 PDT