Skip Links

Worser and worser laws

Backspin By Mark Gibbs, Network World
April 07, 2003 12:06 AM ET
Gibbs
  • Print

"Although the Santa Cruz Library makes every effort to protect your privacy, under the federal USA PATRIOT ACT (Public Law 107-56), records of the books and other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. . . . Questions about policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington D.C. 20530."
- Sign in a Santa Cruz public library.

Yes, it is true. Hidden inside H.R. 3162, the USA Patriot Act, there is a section titled "Access to records and other items under the foreign intelligence surveillance act." This section gives the FBI carte blanche to find out what you read and watch. Honest.

What is required is an agent asserts your media selection details are "relevant" to an investigation and a warrant will be issued by a secret judge.

And you don't have to be suspected of anything for the FBI to ask for your records. At one time "probable cause" had to be demonstrated, tying the need for data directly to a crime or evidence of a crime but, alas, no more. And the librarian, bookshop or video shop owner is prohibited from telling you that you are being investigated!

Getting worried? Then this is going to really tick you off: Under the wording of the latest draft of the Patriot II Act, using encryption in the commission of a crime attracts additional penalties much as using a gun in a robbery does.

Say you failed to pay state tax on an Internet purchase (you did know you are responsible for reporting such purchases, right?). Because you probably made the purchase using a Secure Sockets Layer encrypted link, you could face five extra years for the offense, according to an Associated Press report.

That is unlikely to happen, as the AP story points out. But there could be a risk for corporations if a zealous prosecutor was determined to "get" them.

Worse still, a number of states, including Massachusetts, Texas, Alaska and Colorado, have draft bills that propose to extend the dreaded Digital Millennium Copyright Act such that the use of routers, firewalls and VPNs would be illegal! No kidding (see what Scott Bradner has to say about this).

The Colorado bill (HB 03-1303) is a typical example of the wording of these bills: "A person commits a violation . . . if he or she possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes, transfers, imports into this state, licenses, leases, sells, offers to sell, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any communication device . . . to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider . . . the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication that utilizes a communication device."

Again, common sense tells you that this is unlikely to be interpreted so broadly as to make routers, VPNs and firewalls illegal, but it is not actually certain. And the use of any encryption or network address translation or anonymizing service of any kind will make it easy for the government to request a warrant to see what's going on "just in case."

  • Print
What is Tech Briefcase?
TechBriefcase is a new, free service where IT Professionals can Search, Store and Share IT white papers and content like this. Learn more
Bookmark content
Speed up your research efforts with content across the web.
Search and Store
Find the white papers you need. Create folders for any topic.
View Anywhere
Open your briefcase on your iPhone, tablet or desktop. Share with colleagues.
Don't have an account yet?

Videos

rssRss Feed