From Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Sep 23 06:53:58 2001 From: Eugene Leitl To: cypherpunks-legacy@lists.cpunks.org Subject: IP: Do read -- EFF statement on opposition to MATA/ATA (fwd) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 06:53:58 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2581547937438110169==" --===============2581547937438110169== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 06:25:50 -0400 From: David Farber Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Do read -- EFF statement on opposition to MATA/ATA >EFF members have asked why we have objected to some of the proposed >changes to wiretapping and other laws made in the aftermath of the recent >terrorist attacks on the U.S. We do not raise these objections lightly, >not are they light objections. We fully support legitimate government >efforts to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. Yet as a >watchdog for civil liberties, we are skeptical of claims that the only way >we can increase our security is by giving up our freedoms. And a close >look at the specific measures proposed shows several areas that should >concern all Americans. > >First, these bills are not being carefully reviewed, or even reviewed at >all, by our lawmakers. SA 1562 was introduced late at night and voted on >within a half hour, with several senators complaining that they had not >been given the chance to read it. Similarly, both MATA and its later >incarnation, ATA, are long and complex bills, making changes throughout >our legal structure. Yet the Attorney General has asked for them to be >voted into law within a week. This complete dismissal of the normal >processes for legislation should alarm anyone who believes in democratic >government. > >Second, these changes are permanent. EFF shares the desire to move >quickly now in order to better track the perpetrators of this shocking >attack. But none of the legislative changes that have been proposed so >far is temporary -- these are broad ranging, permanent reductions in civil >liberties and privacy of all Americans. History has shown that such laws, >passed in haste during a time of crisis, linger and cause difficulties >long after the crisis has passed. > >Third, these proposed laws include provisions that appear to have nothing >to do with fighting terrorism, such as allowing wiretaps based upon >allegations of defacing a web site. If it is the case that low-level >computer defacement is a problem that relates to terrorism, we encourage >law enforcement to explain the connection. Instead, it seems that several >of the most worrisome provisions of the proposed laws are part of a >general law enforcement "wish list" rather than a specific response to >terrorism. > >Finally, changes in surveillance authority are suggested without any >showing that the current requirements for FISA, Title III and pen/trap >surveillance posed a barrier to the investigation of the attacks. We have >been told that FISA warrants were issued and served on major ISPs within >hours of the terrorist attacks last week. There have been no reports that >the minimal processes required for these warrants have hampered the >investigations. > >The EFF does not categorically oppose all changes in our laws or >regulations in response to the attack. But responses that are unrelated >to increasing our security or that change parts of the laws that are not a >barrier to preventing of terrorism are not only bad policy, they run the >risk of lulling us into believing that we are more safe than we actually >are. The EFF does not claim to be experts in anti-terrorism measures. We >are experts in civil liberties and privacy, however, and believe that any >lessening of those rights must be carefully debated and adequately justified. > >The U.S. legal system has been based upon the basic precept that American >citizens should not be subject to surveillance unless there has been a >showing that he or she may have committed a serious offense. Maybe we now >wish abandon that precept. Maybe we now wish to live in a world where who >we e-mail and where we travel on the Internet is routinely monitored by >centralized government authorities. We at the EFF do not believe so. But >at a minimum, such changes must be subjected to informed public debate. > >On September 11, President Bush said that freedom itself had been >attacked. In our response to that horrible act, the understandable desire >to prevent future attacks should not lead us to do further, permanent >damage that same freedom. For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ --===============2581547937438110169==--