-Caveat Lector-
From
http://reason.com/hod/sm102601.html
}}}>Begin
See all of Reason's coverage of the war on terrorism here:
Terror Strikes
October 26, 2001
Surveillance Switcheroo
How the anti-terrorism bill got passed
By Sam MacDonald
In the days following September 11, it was easy to feel kinda bad for
Attorney General John Ashcroft. He really wanted to catch the
terrorists, but he just didn’t seem up to the job. Whiz-bang
encryption and communication technologies had left the cops in the
dust, he said, and unless the country acted fast, things would only
get worse. That’s compelling stuff, but it turns out to be an almost
complete inversion of the truth. As the debate over anti-terrorism
legislation boiled over late this week, one thing became painfully
clear -- in the nasty battle for information in the Internet Age,
politicians are still far too slippery for the privacy lobby to pin
down.
Take the bill that the House passed Wednesday morning. News accounts
summarize the legislation by noting that it increases government
surveillance capabilities and has a bunch of "money-laundering"
provisions. That's all true, but it's also very general--and when it
comes to bills like this, the devil is always in the details. It
turns out that even most House members had no idea what they were
voting overwhelmingly in favor of.
Indeed, if you happened to know what the House bill actually said,
you were one of the lucky few. In a phone interview Thursday
afternoon, Wired News technology reporter Declan McCullagh said that
he couldn’t get his hands on the full text until after it passed. He
said he still had not pored over the enormously complex bill when we
spoke. "The anti-terrorism legislation was rushed through Congress,"
McCullagh says. "There was little time for legislators to review the
legislation before the vote happened. To their shame, they pretty
much went ahead and voted for it anyway."
Although the House passed anti-terrorism legislation earlier this
month, it was far removed from a bill that made it through the
Senate. Deliberations that normally would have gone on in a
conference committee instead happened informally. In the meantime,
congressional sources who could have shed some light on the
proceedings were almost impossible to track down because of the
anthrax-induced frenzy on Capitol Hill. According to McCullagh, rank-
and-file House members were still in the dark Tuesday night as
leaders tried to hash out a deal with the Senate and the
administration: "Members of the House of Representatives were saying,
‘Whoa, can I see a copy of this bill? We haven’t seen it yet.’"
A House staffer complained that the Senate never held hearings on
some of the most important privacy issues: "They sold the privacy
community down the river on that one." The source added that there
was too much pressure to keep the legislation from going forward; the
best privacy fans could do was add provisions like the sunset clause
that will force Congress to reconsider at least parts of the
legislation in 2004. "The attorney general didn’t want to get blamed
for terrorist attack number two. He turned to the career bureaucrats
who dusted off all these old proposals. It was just thrown in our
laps."
Think tanks and reporters around Washington scrambled Thursday
afternoon to figure out what the final bill said. When I asked Jim
Harper of Privacilla.org what it all meant, he replied, "I don’t know
if I’m going to be any less confused than you are." The Center for
Democracy and Technology had a media conference call at one o’clock.
Executive Director Jerry Berman and Deputy Director James Dempsey
addressed how some of the bill’s provisions might be abused. Berman
noted that the FBI could conceivably study all the traffic on news
sites that offer a pro-Middle Eastern spin: "You’re going to get the
news, you’re trying to the get all the news. You haven’t even joined
a political party. You haven’t joined anything. But those are now of
interest. Why are you going to that site? Are you a member of an
organization? Are you a supporter of the terrorists? Why don’t we
also look at your other records?"
This is not good stuff. One small reason to cheer: The final bill
does have the sunset provision (but it doesn't apply to all aspects
of the bill). More cautious legislators also managed to kill what was
probably the most controversial measure -- the one giving cops the
power to detain suspected immigrants indefinitely. (As passed, the
bill requires officials to charge people with something or deport
them within seven days.) Fortunately, it doesn’t even mention
encryption. On the other hand, there are real concerns: federal
officials can view e-mail subject lines and the addresses of Web
sites people visit with near impunity. Perhaps worst of all, there is
little in the bill that restricts the new police powers to terrorism
investigations. Once the feds stamp out terrorism, there is a very
real possibility that they will cast their new net in search of drug
dealers, deadbeat dads, and traffic scofflaws.
How much leeway will law enforcement officials have to abuse these
new powers? That won’t be clear until the technology and privacy
organizations get a chance to digest things. That alone constitutes
one of the most seismic shifts in politics since September 11. Less
than a month ago, the feds were on their heels, scratching for power
in a technological world that had left them far behind. Today, the
situation is reversed: After four weeks of political intrigue, it’s
the denizens of the Web who are scrambling for information, wondering
what just Mr. Ashcroft has in store.
Sam MacDonald ( [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is REASON's Washington editor.
How to subscribe
Return to the Reason Magazine home page
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
