-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ 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 <dave@farber.net> Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1@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/