IP: Re: Interesting Clarke interview in case you missed it

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:50:33 -0800
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com>
>
> > > Howard Schmidt, Microsoft's chief security officer, is expected to leave
> > > within the next month to join the Bush administration and work with White
> > > House cyber-security adviser Richard Clarke, according to sources in the
> > > computer-security industry.
> > >
> > > Mark Sachs, a U.S. Army major who is an operations analyst at the Joint
> > > Task Force for Computer Network Operations, also expected to join Clarke's
> > > team. The task force Sachs currently works for oversees the Pentagon's
> > > global information systems, sources said.
>
> Given
>
> (1) the pervasive-net-surveillance and freedom-to-snoop-sans-court-orders 
> that Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush's federal agencies are pursuing so 
> eagerly and aggressively, against American residents and citizens alike;
>
> (2) the endless security holes in Microsoft's software and MSN-network, 
> that crackers and miscreants have exploited for years of virus and DDoS 
> attacks, and
>
> (3) the fact that "the Pentagon's global information systems" can as 
> easily refer to the military's *surveillance* systems, as to the DoD's MIS 
> systems ...
>
> ... then, one cannot help but wonder:
>
> How much time will Microsoft's "security" officer and the Pentagon's 
> "global information" officer spend on improving government and/or 
> corporate/citizen computer security ...
>
> ... versus ...
>
> How much time will they spend on expanding and deploying the 
> administration's long-existent Echelon 
> dragnet/fishing-expedition/communications-surveillance system, and the 
> FBI's recently-announced covert keystroke-grabbing software ...
>
> ... into and onto all citizens' and organizations' computers?
>
>
> After all, one of the Republican's last Attorneys General before Aschroft --
> Reagan's Ed Meese -- made their perspective clear for all to see.  He 
> said, "If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." (Of 
> course, he said that *before* criminal investigators began investigating 
> *him* around 1988.)
>
> And all the polls show that the public *supports* whatever it is that the 
> administration is doing, including demolition of [other people's] personal 
> privacy and civil liberties.
>
> All 'Right'-minded, properly-subservient citizens and business people 
> should applaud this!  They're from the government; they're here to help us.
>
> --jim
> Jim Warren; jwarren () well com, technology & public policy columnist & advocate
>
> [self-inflating puffery: Playboy Foundation Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award;
> Soc.of Prof.Journalists-Nor.Calif. James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award;
> founded InfoWorld, Dr.Dobb's Journal, and Computers, Freedom & Privacy Confs.;
> Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer Award (in its first year), blah blah]
>
>
> And if you think this is something new, remember the 1995 Republican 
> Congress' legislation to legalize use of evidence obtained by unauthorized 
> search -- as reported by Farber on his IP list at the time:
>
> So long, Fourth Amendment
> From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 17:36:57 -0500
> ... (Fri Jan 27), the House Judiciary Committee approved this abrogation 
> of the Fourth Amendment, on a 19-14 vote, after breaking it out of H.R.3, 
> "The Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995":
>
>   In General.--Chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
> adding at the end the following:
>   "Sec. 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure
>   "(a) Evidence Obtained by Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure.-- 
> Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not 
> be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground 
> that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to 
> the Constitution of the United States, if the search or seizure was 
> carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief 
> that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that 
> evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant 
> constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances.
>   "(b) Evidence Not Excludable by Statute or Rule.--Evidence shall not be 
> excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground 
> that it was obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule or 
> regulation, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is expressly 
> authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court 
> pursuant to statutory authority.
>
> From S.3, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Improvement Act 
> of 1995 (still pending [in February, 1995] before the Senate Judiciary 
> Committee):
>
>   "Sec. 3502A. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure
>   "(a) Evidence Obtained by Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure.-- 
> Evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure that is otherwise 
> admissible in a Federal criminal proceeding shall not be excluded in a 
> proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the search 
> or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
> "(b) Evidence Not Excludable by Statute or Rule.--Evidence shall not be 
> excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground 
> that it was obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule, or 
> a rule of court procedure unless exclusion is expressly authorized by 
> statute or by a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to chapter 
> 131 of title 28.

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