IP: Do read -- EFF statement on opposition to MATA/ATA

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> EFF members have asked why we have objected to some of the proposed 
> changes to wiretapping and other laws made in the aftermath of the recent 
> terrorist attacks on the U.S. We do not raise these objections lightly, 
> not are they light objections.  We fully support legitimate government 
> efforts to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. Yet as a 
> watchdog for civil liberties, we are skeptical of claims that the only way 
> we can increase our security is by giving up our freedoms.  And a close 
> look at the specific measures proposed shows several areas that should 
> concern all Americans.
>
> First, these bills are not being carefully reviewed, or even reviewed at 
> all, by our lawmakers.   SA 1562 was introduced late at night and voted on 
> within a half hour, with several senators complaining that they had not 
> been given the chance to read it.  Similarly, both MATA and its later 
> incarnation, ATA, are long and complex bills, making changes throughout 
> our legal structure. Yet the Attorney General has asked for them to be 
> voted into law within a week.  This complete dismissal of the normal 
> processes for legislation should alarm anyone who believes in democratic 
> government.
>
> Second, these changes are permanent.  EFF shares the desire to move 
> quickly now in order to better track the perpetrators of this shocking 
> attack.  But none of the legislative changes that have been proposed so 
> far is temporary -- these are broad ranging, permanent reductions in civil 
> liberties and privacy of all Americans.  History has shown that such laws, 
> passed in haste during a time of crisis, linger and cause difficulties 
> long after the crisis has passed.
>
> Third, these proposed laws include provisions that appear to have nothing 
> to do with fighting terrorism, such as allowing wiretaps based upon 
> allegations of defacing a web site. If it is the case that low-level 
> computer defacement is a problem that relates to terrorism, we encourage 
> law enforcement to explain the connection. Instead, it seems that several 
> of the most worrisome provisions of the proposed laws are part of a 
> general law enforcement "wish list" rather than a specific response to 
> terrorism.
>
> Finally, changes in surveillance authority are suggested without any 
> showing that the current requirements for FISA, Title III and pen/trap 
> surveillance posed a barrier to the investigation of the attacks.  We have 
> been told that FISA warrants were issued and served on major ISPs within 
> hours of the terrorist attacks last week.  There have been no reports that 
> the minimal processes required for these warrants have hampered the 
> investigations.
>
> The EFF does not categorically oppose all changes in our laws or 
> regulations in response to the attack.  But responses that are unrelated 
> to increasing our security or that change parts of the laws that are not a 
> barrier to preventing of terrorism are not only bad policy, they run the 
> risk of lulling us into believing that we are more safe than we actually 
> are.  The EFF does not claim to be experts in anti-terrorism measures. We 
> are experts in civil liberties and privacy, however, and believe that any 
> lessening of those rights must be carefully debated and adequately justified.
>
> The U.S. legal system has been based upon the basic precept that American 
> citizens should not be subject to surveillance unless there has been a 
> showing that he or she may have committed a serious offense.  Maybe we now 
> wish abandon that precept.  Maybe we now wish to live in a world where who 
> we e-mail and where we travel on the Internet is routinely monitored by 
> centralized government authorities. We at the EFF do not believe so. But 
> at a minimum, such changes must be subjected to informed public debate.
>
> On September 11, President Bush said that freedom itself had been 
> attacked.  In our response to that horrible act, the understandable desire 
> to prevent future attacks should not lead us to do further, permanent 
> damage that same freedom.



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