In the immediate aftermath of 11 September, 2001, the worry in Washington, D.C., was more about national security than about individual privacy.
A couple days after the terror attacks, the US Senate voted to grant the Federal Bureau of Investigation sweeping Internet surveillance powers that in some cases would not require a judge's approval. Huge portions of that bill, self-importantly titled the Combating Terrorism Act, eventually became part of the even more grandly named law called the USA Patriot Act.
Soon after the law's enactment, Attorney General John Ashcroft began likening criticism of such dubious legislation to the treasonous offense of "aiding terrorists". Noted civil libertarians such as Alan Dershowitz began to suggest that entrepreneurial judges could issue "torture warrants" against suspected terrorists, while automated face-recognition cameras began popping up in airports, and politicians began scheming about how to ban encryption products without backdoors for government snoops.
Suffice to say that privacy was not exactly paramount in everyone's mind. But as the two-year anniversary of 11 September approaches, there are signs that Congress realises it went too far in allowing electronic surveillance and other invasions of personal privacy.
Consider some recent evidence:
By a 309 to 118 vote last Tuesday, the US House of Representatives approved legislation that would essentially block part of the USA Patriot Act that permitted police to seek a court order that let them surreptitiously enter a home or business. The amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State spending bill would not repeal the "secret search" law but instead would deny federal agencies any funds that could be used in order to take advantage of it.
During the floor debate, Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, the amendment's sponsor, offered this impassioned defence of liberty: "Sneak-and-peek searches give the government the power to repeatedly search a private residence without informing the residents that he or she is the target of an investigation. Not only does this provision allow the seizure of personal property and business records without notification, but it also opens the door to nationwide search warrants and allows the CIA and the NSA to operate domestically."
Also last week, some House members tried to nix the part of the USA Patriot Act that handed the FBI broad powers to search library or bookstore records without the usual need for search warrants or judicial oversight. Offered by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., the amendment was ruled to be out of order -- but it enjoys the support of 129 members of Congress and advocacy groups like the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
Ashcroft and his aides at the US Department of Justice are hardly delighted by this privacy backlash-backlash.
On July 17, the US Senate yanked funding for the Pentagon's creepy Total Information Awareness plan (TIA), which aims to weave together strands of data from various sources -- such as travel, credit card, bank, electronic toll and driver's licence databases -- with the stated purpose of identifying terrorists before they strike. (Earlier, the Pentagon had responded to public outcry by changing the project's name to Terrorist Information Awareness.)
Last Tuesday, at a meeting of a US Department of Defense advisory committee, top intelligence officers said TIA wasn't really all that spectacular an idea, anyway. "They need to work on the underlying business model before it is implemented," said Maureen Baginski, the FBI's executive assistant director for intelligence, according to Federal Computer Week. Alan Wade, chief information officer at the CIA, warned that "the scope may be too big."
Ouch. And this is from the cadre of spooks who supposedly wanted TIA in the first place?
Ashcroft and his aides at the US Department of Justice are hardly delighted by this privacy backlash-backlash. Not only are they intent on keeping the USA Patriot Act intact, but they're not happy at finding themselves suddenly on the defensive.
There will be further activation issues to watch out for as Microsoft plans to offer a similar service to independent software vendors whereby they can "control" licensing through activation and other measures similar to the Software Protection Platform.
Yesterday the BBC ran a story about a computer virus making it into orbit, which I read with incredulity. OK, it's a nice silly season story on the surface, but what really got me was... More
The recent news about customer details being retrieved from a server sold on eBay is yet another story about the sorry state of information security in the electronic age (see: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/...m).... More
In spam terms, apparently it does. According to Cambridge University security expert Richard Clayton, if your email address is aardvark at animal.net, you are more likely to receive... More
Previous
Digg
Slashdot
Del.ici.ous
Stumble
Reddit
