I'm still trying to figure out how this stops foreign aviation
students from hijacking airplanes with boxcutters and comitting
spectacular murder/suicide.
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Woody wrote:
> This seems like important info pertaining to our list and an interesting
> corillary to the recently hijacked discussion. I urge everyone to stand
> up to defend what "Constitutionally Guaranteed" freedoms we have left.
> If you doubt the danger form either our corporations, our
> representatives or our "friends" -- remember Dimitri and our recently
> departed list member.
>
> Woody
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Senate OKs FBI Net Spying
> Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 07:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
> From: <Original Poster Name Removed>
> To: <Original Recipient List Removed>
>
> <>
> "Under the Combating Terrorism Act 2001, prosecutors
> could authorize surveillance for 48-hour periods
> without a judge?s approval."
> [...]
> "Other portions include assessing how prepared the
> National Guard is to respond to weapons of mass
> destruction, handing the CIA more flexibility in
> recruiting informants and improving the storage of
> U.S. 'biological pathogens.'"
> <>
>
> ============================
> ===forwarded message===
>
> [The following report from Wired News shows that
> freedom is another casualty in the recent terrorist
> attacks.-DC]
>
> Senate OKs FBI Net Spying
> By Declan McCullagh
> 12:55 p.m. Sep. 14, 2001 PDT
>
> WASHINGTON-FBI agents soon may be able to spy on
> Internet users legally without a court order.
> On Thursday evening, two days after the worst
> terrorist attack in U.S. history, the Senate approved
> the ?Combating Terrorism Act of 2001,? which enhances
> police wiretap powers and permits monitoring in more
> situations.
>
> The measure, proposed by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and
> Dianne Feinstein (D-California), says any U.S.
> attorney or state attorney general can order the
> installation of the FBI?s Carnivore surveillance
> system. Previously, there were stiffer restrictions on
> Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques.
> Its bipartisan sponsors argue that such laws are
> necessary to thwart terrorism. ?It is essential that
> we give our law enforcement authorities every possible
> tool to search out and bring to justice those
> individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death
> into our backyard,? Hatch said during the debate on
> the Senate floor.
>
> Thursday?s vote comes as the nation?s capital is
> reeling from the catastrophes at the World Trade
> Center and the Pentagon, and politicians are vowing to
> do whatever is necessary to preserve the safety of
> Americans.
>
> This week, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called
> for restrictions on privacy-protecting encryption
> products, and Carnivore?s use appears on the rise. In
> England, government officials have asked phone
> companies and Internet providers to collect and record
> all their users? communications-in case the massive
> accumulation of data might yield clues about Tuesday?s
> terrorist attacks.
>
> Under the Combating Terrorism Act, prosecutors could
> authorize surveillance for 48-hour periods without a
> judge?s approval.
>
> Warrantless surveillance appears to be limited to the
> addresses of websites visited, the names and addresses
> of e-mail correspondents, and so on, and is not
> intended to include the contents of communications.
> But the legislation would cover URLs, which include
> information such as what Web pages you?re visiting and
> what terms you type in when visiting search engines.
> Circumstances that don?t require court orders include
> an ?immediate threat to the national security
> interests of the United States, (an) immediate threat
> to public health or safety or an attack on the
> integrity or availability of a protected computer.?
>
> That covers most computer hacking offenses.
> During Thursday?s floor debate, Sen. Patrick Leahy
> (D-Vermont), head of the Judiciary committee,
> suggested that the bill went far beyond merely
> thwarting terrorism and could endanger Americans?
> privacy. He also said he had a chance to read the
> Combating Terrorism Act just 30 minutes before the
> floor debate began.
>
> ?Maybe the Senate wants to just go ahead and adopt new
> abilities to wiretap our citizens,? Leahy said. ?Maybe
> they want to adopt new abilities to go into people?s
> computers. Maybe that will make us feel safer. Maybe.
> And maybe what the terrorists have done made us a
> little bit less safe. Maybe they have increased Big
> Brother in this country.?
>
> By voice vote, the Senate attached the Combating
> Terrorism Act to an annual spending bill that funds
> the Commerce, Justice and State departments for the
> fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, then unanimously
> approved it. Since the House has not reviewed this
> version of the appropriations bill, a conference
> committee will be created to work out the differences.
>
>
> Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), one of the co-sponsors, said
> the Combating Terrorism Act would give former FBI
> Director Louis Freeh what he had lobbied for years
> ago: ?These are the kinds of things that law
> enforcement has asked us for. This combination is
> relatively modest in comparison with the kind of
> terrorist attack we have just suffered.?
>
> ?Experts in terrorism have been telling us for a long
> time and the director of the FBI has been telling us
> (to make) a few changes in the law that make it easier
> for our law enforcement people to do their job,? Kyl
> said.
>
> It?s unclear what day-to-day effects the Combating
> Terrorism Act would have on prosecutors and Internet
> users. Some Carnivore installations apparently already
> take place under emergency wiretap authority, and some
> civil liberties experts say part of this measure would
> give that practice stronger legal footing.
>
> ?One of the key issues that have surrounded the use of
> Carnivore is being addressed by the Senate in a
> late-night session during a national emergency,? says
> David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy
> Information Center.
>
> A source close to the Senate Judiciary committee
> pointed out that the wording of the Combating
> Terrorism Act is so loose -- the
> no-court-order-required language covers ?routing? and
> ?addressing? data-that it?s unclear what its drafters
> intended. The Justice Department had requested similar
> legislation last year.
>
> ?Nobody really knows what routing and addressing
> information is.... If you?re putting in addressing
> information and routing information, you may not just
> get (From: lines of e-mail messages), you might also
> get content,? the source said.
>
> The Combating Terrorism Act also expands the list of
> criminal offenses for which traditional, court-ordered
> wiretaps can be sought to explicitly include terrorism
> and computer hacking.
>
> Other portions include assessing how prepared the
> National Guard is to respond to weapons of mass
> destruction, handing the CIA more flexibility in
> recruiting informants and improving the storage of
> U.S. ?biological pathogens.?
>
--
Ed Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Taxi (I need an income) GNU/Linux (I can afford a Free OS)
Think this through with me, let me know your mind... Hunter/Garcia
