FYI this comes from today's Financial Times in London! Lilly Evans ------------------------------------ Strength in online liberty The US is bringing in new measures to monitor internet traffic. But taming the web is not the way to disarm terrorists, writes Patti Waldmeir. Published: September 19 2001 19:51 | Last Updated: September 20 2001 07:59 Civilisations shape themselves through war. But not even the most far-sighted Cassandra predicted that war would be the event to shape the future of the internet. Back in peacetime, an internet civilisation of rights and values was slowly emerging from the rhetorical battles fought in America's courtrooms, universities and legislatures. But now, everything has changed, right? Now we have no leisure to debate the role of ancient freedoms in cyberspace. We must rush to war with terrorism, wherever it is found - whether in the lawless wastes of central Asia or the anarchic world of the internet. In the name of national security, surely, both must now be tamed? Part of me agrees, for I too am an angry American. I too spent frantic minutes last Tuesday locating my toddler daughter in Washington DC. I too have been frightened half out of my civil liberties by the events of the past 10 days. But unlike many, perhaps most, of my countrymen, I do not consider it sheer hedonism now - while lives may still be threatened - to spend time debating the future of liberty online. For the next few days could prove crucial to the future of the internet. Perhaps as early as Wednesday or Thursday, the US Congress may enact new anti-terrorism legislation. Cyber-society may emerge with all its rights and freedoms intact, or it may not. Either way, this is likely to prove a turning point. Haste is clearly of the essence. While the dust still hung heavy on lower Manhattan last week, the US Senate spent a scant 30 minutes debating anti-terrorism measures before giving the government new freedom to monitor internet communications. The bill allows the FBI's unfelicitously named Carnivore technology, already in use on telephones, to tap internet communications such as e-mail. Like its brother canines in the drug wars, Carnivore can sniff out suspicious activity. The bill passed last week by the Senate must be reconciled with a House version before its final passage, but it would allow law enforcement authorities to conduct some internet surveillance without a court order. The information law enforcers could thus obtain sounds innocuous enough: the internet address of websites people visit and the address of any e-mails they send - the internet equivalent of tailing them and snooping on the phone numbers they dial, rather than eavesdropping on what they say. And even warrantless taps must be approved by a court within 48 hours. But privacy advocates worry that Carnivore's use may inadvertently expose to government scrutiny many entirely innocent (and legitimately private) communications. This may not be the end of freedom as we know it, but it is a tool that could easily be misused. And John Ashcroft, the US attorney-general, has made it plain that he wants more techno-legal tools to fight terrorism. He pushed Congress to clear its calendar to pass new legislation. As I write, the details are still being worked on, but the attorney-general has said he wants new authority to wiretap individuals (wiretap orders currently apply to phone numbers rather than humans, an anachronism in a world of disposable cellphones). Meanwhile, non-governmental actors may be having even more impact on internet freedom. Internet service providers, including such companies as AOL, which offer a gateway to the online world, have begun voluntarily to censor communications on their networks. Many of the larger companies have been removing both postings by Islamic militant groups and the ugly anti-Muslim messages they provoke. Participants in internet chat rooms cannot, strictly speaking, challenge AOL for unconstitutionally suppressing free speech, because AOL is not the government and only the state is barred from restricting speech. But as Cass Sunstein, law professor at the University of Chicago, points out, the sheer volume of communications hosted by AOL means it has a large role - a quasi-governmental role - in controlling public space. What AOL is doing is almost certainly legal, but that does not mean it is a good thing. America has built its strength on the tolerance of diverse points of view, however odious. Free societies tolerate free speech, even when it is ugly. It is hard to believe that suppressing vile sentiments makes them go away. All of these actions - governmental or private - may be defensible as temporary reactions to a wartime emergency. But as Eugene Volokh, constitutional law expert at the UCLA law school, points out, Americans should not delude themselves: as the administration keeps warning, this war will not be over soon. And if restrictions on civil liberties last as long as the war, that could be a very long time. Americans could easily end up in the worst of all worlds - one where hallowed liberties have been traded for only scant increases in security. For history teaches that humans always underestimate the costs and overestimate the benefits of such changes. Locking up Japanese-Americans during the second world war did not help win the war, it merely debased American values. Similarly, it is hard to see that reading everyone's e-mail - even if it were feasible, which it is not - would prevent another terrorist atrocity. If human nature were otherwise and the FBI could be trusted to use its new powers to prevent terrorism, it might just be worth sacrificing some small freedoms. But the opposite scenario seems more likely. Americans will be tempted to trade liberties for security measures that are powerless to counter such a threat. For in the end, nothing has changed, really. The best way to preserve a free society is the same as it has ever been: to preserve its freedoms. Taming the internet or any other American public space will not disarm terrorists. They will be only too glad if we consume our ideals, instead of our enemies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------ ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.globalknowledge.org>
