Politech mailing list archives
FC: USA Today on wiretap perils and Justice Dept response
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:51:05 -0400
[Those links no longer work]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 18:07:28 -0400 To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> From: rotenberg () epic org Subject: USA Today on Wiretaps & DOJ Response http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/nceditf.htm 09/02/99- Updated 08:04 AM ET Increased digital monitoring opens door to wide abuse When the Federal Communications Commission expanded the ability of police to monitor telephone communications last week, civil libertarians and privacy advocates howled. Law enforcement is to get the capacity, with court orders, to monitor conference calls, listen to people who are put on hold and track people to their cell tower locations, among other things. Police agencies say they need such abilities to keep tabs on criminals using modern communications. But the latest news is only the latest piece of a deeper and troubling trend.
[...]
In none of this is much thought given to people's legitimate right and need for privacy. Indeed, the efforts are deterring telephone companies, communications equipment makers and software companies from providing the best security possible. The result: Hackers now using ordinary computers can break supposedly impregnable codes for cell phones because of weaknesses put there under law enforcement pressure.
[...]
If a crisis is brewing, it isn't that criminals and terrorists will escape. It is that the government's ageless eagerness to pry will supersede the public's right to be free of that prying.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/ncoppf.htm Criminals have gone high-tech By James K. Robinson The Clinton administration fully supports the use of encryption and other new technologies to provide privacy and security to law-abiding citizens in the digital age. Just as our citizens already use the Internet, cellular phone systems and other communications technologies to improve their lives, soon the vast majority of people will also use encryption on a daily basis. However, criminals are increasingly using encryption and other technologies to shield their illegal activities from their victims and the police. The fundamental and undeniable concern of law enforcement is that we maintain the ability -- consistent with the Constitution and important privacy protections -- to respond to those criminals who encrypt evidence of criminal activity to elude law enforcement. In short, we support privacy, security and a safe electronic environment. During the normal course of investigations, law enforcement agencies must obtain the evidence needed to prosecute criminals. At the same time, we have laws that govern how these agencies can obtain that evidence -- strict laws that balance the agencies' need to protect public safety with the privacy rights of individuals -- and we follow those laws. For example, if we have probable cause to believe that someone is creating and distributing child pornography, we can search the premises where the pornography is stored for evidence, with a search warrant issued by a court. Technology has changed law enforcement agencies' ability to do their jobs. A child pornographer can use modern technologies to communicate with other criminals and to store pictures and other information on a computer. More important, these criminals can use encryption to scramble their communications and pictures so that law enforcement agencies, even with a court-authorized warrant, cannot decode the information or read the documents. Thus, the legally obtained evidence is useless. If, as a result, a law enforcement agency cannot prove its case, then the child pornographers will go free. And, of course, the same situation applies with respect to those drug cartels and terrorists who are also using encryption. We, emphatically, do not want to outlaw encryption or to access the private, personal information of the law-abiding public. The real question is: What do we do when criminals use good technology for bad purposes? Law enforcement agencies must be authorized to adapt to our technological world. We can only protect the public if we can appropriately investigate and prosecute criminals. If a judge has determined that law enforcement is authorized to obtain evidence from or about a suspected criminal, then that suspect should not be permitted to hide the evidence, remain free and continue to prey on the public. Law enforcement must have the ability to act, in accordance with the Constitution and strict, narrowly written laws that are designed to balance both public safety and individual privacy, to locate and identify criminals and to gather evidence. If their investigative tools are unable to keep up with current technology, public safety will be at great risk as we enter the next millennium. We look forward to working with Congress and interested groups to develop an effective strategy to achieve these objectives. James K. Robinson is assistant attorney general, Criminal Division, Department of Justice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: USA Today on wiretap perils and Justice Dept response Declan McCullagh (Sep 03)