[iwar] [fc:Battling.Terrorism:.Trading.Digital.Privacy.for.Nothing?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-28 16:16:55

Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Temporary.committee.on.the.Echelon.interception.system]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Taliban.leader.says.those.who.help.US.may."be.considered.enemies"]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Message-Id: <200109282316.QAA17664@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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Battling.Terrorism:.Trading.Digital.Privacy.for.Nothing?]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Battling Terrorism: Trading Digital Privacy for Nothing?

By Robyn Weisman, www.NewsFactor.com, 9/28/2001
<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nf/20010928/tc/13779_1.html">http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nf/20010928/tc/13779_1.html>

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the Pentagon
(news - web sites) and the World Trade Center, many Americans have
expressed support for more intrusive online security and surveillance
activities, and a large number seem willing to sacrifice a measure of
long-cherished civil liberties. 

Comments on Internet message boards support formal surveys.  A typical
writer said: "I can't imagine anyone having anything to fear [from]
having email scanned by a computer program unless they have something to
hide."

Another agreed, saying: "By all means, read my e-mail and follow my
every move on the Net if it means avoiding another catastrophe like the
one we're reeling from."

But can laws based on such sentiments, however patriotic and
well-intentioned, be effective in identifying and apprehending
terrorists? And would such laws erode the basic civil freedoms upon
which American society is based?

Trading Privacy For Nothing?

On September 13th, the U.S.  Senate passed the Combating Terrorism Act
of 2001, which includes an amendment allowing for increased monitoring
of people's activities in cyberspace, including viewing of citizens'
to-from e-mail header data and tracking of visited Web sites. 

The government likens the principle involved in gathering this
information to federal law enforcement agencies' gathering of phone
numbers -- a simple process -- as opposed to the labyrinth of rules and
regulations that must be followed when tapping phone conversations. 

But Richard Hunter, managing vice president of research firm Gartner
Inc., told NewsFactor Network that citizens agreeing to such measures
are "trading their privacy for nothing."

The sort of thinking expressed by both the writers quoted above and by
lawmakers is "based on the assumption that increased monitoring and
increased technology will do the job," Hunter told NewsFactor.  "They're
assuming that these sorts of technology function the way a metal
detector on a beach does -- that we'll sweep [the entire
telecommunications and Internet systems] and manage to find all the
terrorists."

But it's easy for terrorists to evade such measures, now and for the
foreseeable future, said Hunter.  Only careless terrorists will be
caught using such monitoring technologies, and terrorists are rarely
careless. 

Backwards Evidence Gathering

Hunter expressed skepticism that this sort of evidence-gathering would
be an effective way to apprehend terrorists. 

"When police investigate a murder, they direct their investigation
outward from a small group of potential culprits, versus winnowing
[potential suspects] from the entire population," Hunter said. 

The methods championed by Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web
sites) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), in which investigators comb
through terabytes of cyber-data in the hopes of finding the terrorist in
the haystack, won't produce the desired effects, Hunter said.  Moreover,
he added, they may well divert attention and resources from approaches
that could get better results faster. 

"As Americans, we tend to believe that machines and technology do a
lot," said Hunter.  "But they don't do everything and may be
particularly ineffective against certain enemies" like the ones
presently threatening the nation's safety. 

Private Lives, Public Information

Hunter added that the new powers being authorized by Congress may do
little else than turn private lives into public information.  And if
these powers are being invoked because the country is in a state of
emergency, then people need to ask when, exactly, they will be repealed. 

"We could be in this state of war for generations," said Hunter, noting
that after over 80 years of battling the Irish Republican Army (news -
web sites), the British still contend with terrorist bombings. 

Said Hunter: "It's disturbing to see such enormous monitoring powers
being given to the government, essentially without any limit on when
these powers will be revoked.  [Such laws] have the potential to put a
lot of power into corrupt hands."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_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:Temporary.committee.on.the.Echelon.interception.system]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Taliban.leader.says.those.who.help.US.may."be.considered.enemies"]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:51 PDT