[iwar] [fc:ACLU.Exec.Voices.Concerns.over.electronic.rights]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-12-31 13:10:44


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4160-1009832994-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 20860 invoked by uid 510); 31 Dec 2001 21:10:19 -0000
Received: from n6.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.56) by all.net with SMTP; 31 Dec 2001 21:10:19 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4160-1009832994-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.162] by n6.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Dec 2001 21:09:54 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 31 Dec 2001 21:09:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 67118 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2001 21:09:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Dec 2001 21:09:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.125.69) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2001 21:09:53 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fBVLAiH09145 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:10:44 -0800
Message-Id: <200112312110.fBVLAiH09145@red.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 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
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: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:ACLU.Exec.Voices.Concerns.over.electronic.rights]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ACLU Exec Voices Concerns
By Ben Polen 

2:00 a.m. Dec. 31, 2001 PST

WASHINGTON -- The year 2001 was not a great one to be a civil libertarian.

Polls taken after Sept. 11 suggest overwhelming support for Attorney General
John Ashcroft's strong police measures, and Ashcroft recently claimed his
most strident critics are practically "aiding terrorists."

Even the famous American Civil Liberties Union, founded in 1920, has had a
mixed history of defending liberty in times of national crisis.

When Japanese-Americans were interned during World War II, the ACLU's
initial response was supportive. In the 1950s, the ACLU board
surreptitiously provided intelligence information on its members to J. Edgar
Hoover's FBI and voted to condemn the Communist Party as an "international
conspiracy to seize power."

More recently, the ACLU has been a fierce champion of free expression and a
stalwart opponent of more government surveillance authority. It led much of
the opposition to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation
enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Wired News interviewed Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU and
former president of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for his perspective
on civil liberties in the 21st century.

Wired News: With the Bush administration's war on terrorism underway, what's
the outlook for civil liberties in 2002?

Barry Steinhardt: We are now on a war footing in this country. There are
attempts to apply the laws of war domestically with very little security
benefit but also without an end. We are told by the attorney general it's an
ongoing war that has no end, that it's a war against terrorism that will go
on for years. We are now in a grave period for civil liberties.

WN: What are some of the things that Attorney General Ashcroft has done that
worry you? 

Steinhardt: Well, it's not exclusively Attorney General Ashcroft, but
certainly he has been at the forefront to apply the ironically named USA
Patriot Act. It's ironically named -- to call something that attacks
fundamental American values "patriotic."

(The government has detained) more than 1,000 Arab-Americans, sometimes
without counsel. It appears there are secret hearings and secret
incarcerations -- 5,000 persons who are being subjected to interrogation, a
roundup. (It's) based on ethnic profiling; that if you're Arab-American or
of Arab descent, you might be tied to terrorism without any specific cause
that these individuals need to be questioned. You've got all these things
happening -- debates over national IDs, increased surveillance without
security benefits at airports, increased profiling at airports without
benefits in security. That's in the short term. We don't know what the
long-term consequences will be.

WN: It doesn't seem that there's been much public outrage or dissent. Why?

Steinhardt: Well, there is a veneer of public support, but if you go down a
level it shows that Americans are very skeptical about government intrusions
into their rights. When you get past the veneer of support and deserved show
of patriotism that all of us feel, and you look at specific proposals that
have been made and concerns whether government is going too far, you find a
different perception out there.

You're beginning to see it in Congress. Even fairly conservative members
like Reps. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) and Bob Barr (R-Georgia) are questioning
tactics and the rhetoric coming out. We're at the very beginning here. I
expect that as more and more people are affected by the war against
terrorism and loss of liberty, you will see more protest.

I think that will emerge as time goes on. They are skeptical because of past
exaggerated claims by the Justice Department.

WN: When the FBI and the Justice Department said they wanted to interrogate
thousands of Arab-Americans, some local police departments said that they
wouldn't go along. What does this represent?

Steinhardt: William Webster and other former FBI officials were quoted in
the Washington Post as saying that the questioning of 5,000 men violated
fundamental American values and was ineffective. They now recognize there
have been diversion of resources and exaggeration of claims that are being
made. 

The consequence is not only a loss of liberty but also a diversion from the
real hard work of preventing (another) Sept. 11. It's not a particularly
effective way to conduct an investigation. We're all concerned about
protecting our safety, but as we attempt to draw a balance between rights
and safety, we should get some safety benefits. Most of what we see gives us
no safety, but it infringes on rights.

WN: To go back to something you said earlier, can you talk about what
exaggerated claims the Justice Department has made?

Steinhardt: We now know that for a number of years the Justice Department
has been labeling things as "terrorism" that no common-sense American would
label as (such). A disruptive drunk person on an airplane is labeled as a
terrorist, while this person is not a terrorist. It doesn't do us much good
to divert our attention to people who don't threaten our national security,
which are just run-of-the-mill ordinary criminal cases. The ironically named
USA Patriot Act, although styled as anti-terrorist, applies to ordinary
criminal offenses. 

WN: Can we expect to see any legislation along the same lines?

Steinhardt: There probably will be. One would have thought that we would
have been at the end of the cycle with USA Patriot, but in the new
intelligence authorization bill (H.R. 2883, sent to the president on Dec.
18) -- that's the authorizing act for expenditure of funds -- there were
once again attempts to expand foreign intelligence.

For example, blank warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
when you didn't know the person's name or who the person was. There were
things (that weren't present) in the original legislation they were putting
in through the back door on this authorization bill. We expect more
legislation on border security and forms of national identification. There
is likely to be additional aviation security legislation, which would
rewrite foreign and domestic security laws to increase the power ...
intelligence agencies have and to write the courts out of the process.

WN: Don't the courts have some oversight? What do you mean when you say the
law would "write them out of the process?"

Steinhardt: A perfect example of this in the USA Patriot Act is the
application of wiretap laws to the Internet, where you get Internet protocol
addresses and URLs. The role of the courts couldn't be more limited. They
are rubber-stamping. All law enforcement has to do is come in and say they
are doing an investigation and the court has to stamp it.

WN: What kind of surveillance will be conducted?

Steinhardt: Certainly over the next year or two we are going to see more
application of Carnivore and the Magic Lantern worm that is functioning as a
keystroke logger. We are not even going to know for 18 to 24 months, until
we see prosecutions and reports made.

The actual numbers will come in during 2003 and 2004. That's when we will
get a real sense of what the numbers are. As for now, we will have no way to
know it except anecdotally. I have spoken with Internet service providers
who are receiving dozens of requests from the FBI to monitor. We will know
about the use of increased surveillance in two ways: broad numbers from
reports they are likely to make and prosecutions that are likely to be
brought. 

It will be a considerable period of time before that picture will begin to
fill in. The law certainly authorizes a great deal more surveillance, and it
appears they are using it, particularly in Internet communications.

WN: Is there notification if someone has been under surveillance?

Steinhardt: A long time after the fact. It could be as much as six months to
a year. If it's real-time monitoring and there was no prosecution made, it
could be many months -- many years -- before the subject is notified. We're
moving beyond the interception of specific individuals to mass interception
and filtering by law enforcement. Except by a general report to a court,
we're simply not going to know. We've moved beyond the days of FBI agents
sitting in a darkened room somewhere, listening to a conversation that was
picked up because someone put up alligator clips on a line.

WN: What technology can people use to avoid surveillance?

Steinhardt: There are some technologies that people can apply, but if law
enforcement is interested in you, there may be a limited effectiveness. Look
at the Scarfo case in Philadelphia. They literally placed a keystroke
monitor on the fellow's computer to intercept his communication.

They now go beyond that -- they now have a virus or worm that electronically
invades your system. It can function as a keystroke logger. Encryption is
one thing you can do. You can use anonymous surfing, but the counter
technologies are being developed by law enforcement.

Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/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 : 2001-12-31 21:00:00 PST