IP: RE: Senate votes to permit warrantless Net-wiretaps, Carnivore us e

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>
> cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie () steptoe com>
> Subject: RE: Senate votes to permit warrantless Net-wiretaps, Carnivore
>  us e
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:28:17 -0400
>
> This seems a bit alarmist.  The FBI has long had the authority to get the
> phone numbers that are called from or that call to a suspect's phone.  These
> are trap-and-trace and pen-register orders.  The Justice Department has
> generally taken the position that the Internet equivalent of such data is
> the addressing information in emails.  This bill would enshrine the Justice
> Department position in law -- without changing the warrant requirements or
> the predicate for getting such Internet pen register data.  It's not that
> big a change from the status quo.  I would guess that, even without the law,
> Justice would have about a 60-40 or even 70-30 chance of winning its
> argument in court.
>
> In my view there are some reasons to be uneasy about the bill but not
> frothing.
>
> First, the to and from lines on my emails (plus the URLs I visit) are in
> fact more intimate information than the phone numbers I call.  What's more,
> I'm already on notice that the phone numbers aren't all that private --
> they're used to bill me, after all.  Not true for URLs or "to" lines.  Once
> that data is gathered by the police(on a very easy standard, I agree), it
> may never be thrown out, and lots of people can access it.  So extending
> police authority to such data ought to be the occasion for thinking
> creatively about how to discipline the use of that authority.  If I were
> writing the bill, I'd let the police gather such data, but I'd do more to
> audit the people who access it and require prosecutors to notify people
> after the fact that they've been targeted for surveillance (unless that
> would blow an ongoing investigation).  As things stand, the only people who
> find out about such surveillance and thus get a chance to challenge it are
> criminal defendants.  Isn't that just backwards?  I mean, who came up with a
> system in which crooks may go free because their privacy was violated while
> innocent people who've suffered the same violation never have a remedy?
>
> Second, most ISPs would like to see an assurance that Carnivore won't be
> used if they have their own systems that can accomplish the same thing, or
> that they'll be indemnified for any damage Carnivore might do to the system.
>
> In short, we may be missing some opportunities to improve privacy law, but
> it's hard to say that the privacy sky is falling.
>
> Stewart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 6:04 PM
> To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
> Subject: IP: Senate votes to permit warrantless Net-wiretaps, Carnivore
> use
>
>
>
> >Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:14:37 -0400
> >From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
> >
> >Text of the Hatch-Feinstein "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001":
> >http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cta.091401.html
> >
> >Muddled debate over the amendment:
> >http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s091301.html
> >
> >-Declan
> >
> >********
> >
> >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html
> >
> >    Senate OKs FBI Net Spying
> >    By Declan McCullagh (declan () wired com)
> >    12:55 p.m. Sep. 14, 2001 PDT
> >
> >    WASHINGTON -- FBI agents soon may be able to spy on Internet users
> >    legally without a court order.
> >
> >    On Thursday evening, two days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S.
> >    history, the Senate approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001,"
> >    which enhances police wiretap powers and permits monitoring in more
> >    situations.
> >
> >    The measure, proposed by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein
> >    (D-California), says any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can
> >    order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system.
> >    Previously, there were stiffer restrictions on Carnivore and other
> >    Internet surveillance techniques.
> >
> >    Its bipartisan sponsors argue that such laws are necessary to thwart
> >    terrorism. "It is essential that we give our law enforcement
> >    authorities every possible tool to search out and bring to justice
> >    those individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death into our
> >    backyard," Hatch said during the debate on the Senate floor.
> >
> >    [...]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> >You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> >Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> >To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> >This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/