IP: Re: Interesting Clarke interview in case you missed it (fwd)

[Eugene Leitl]

-- 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, 02 Dec 2001 16:06:43 -0500
From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu
To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com
Subject: IP: Re:  Interesting Clarke interview in case you missed it


>Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:50:33 -0800
>To: farber at cis.upenn.edu
>From: Jim Warren <jwarren at well.com>
>
>>>Howard Schmidt, Microsoft's chief security officer, is expected to leave
>>>within the next month to join the Bush administration and work with White
>>>House cyber-security adviser Richard Clarke, according to sources in the
>>>computer-security industry.
>>>
>>>Mark Sachs, a U.S. Army major who is an operations analyst at the Joint
>>>Task Force for Computer Network Operations, also expected to join Clarke's
>>>team. The task force Sachs currently works for oversees the Pentagon's
>>>global information systems, sources said.
>
>Given
>
>(1) the pervasive-net-surveillance and freedom-to-snoop-sans-court-orders
>that Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush's federal agencies are pursuing so
>eagerly and aggressively, against American residents and citizens alike;
>
>(2) the endless security holes in Microsoft's software and MSN-network,
>that crackers and miscreants have exploited for years of virus and DDoS
>attacks, and
>
>(3) the fact that "the Pentagon's global information systems" can as
>easily refer to the military's *surveillance* systems, as to the DoD's MIS
>systems ...
>
>... then, one cannot help but wonder:
>
>How much time will Microsoft's "security" officer and the Pentagon's
>"global information" officer spend on improving government and/or
>corporate/citizen computer security ...
>
>... versus ...
>
>How much time will they spend on expanding and deploying the
>administration's long-existent Echelon
>dragnet/fishing-expedition/communications-surveillance system, and the
>FBI's recently-announced covert keystroke-grabbing software ...
>
>... into and onto all citizens' and organizations' computers?
>
>
>After all, one of the Republican's last Attorneys General before Aschroft --
>Reagan's Ed Meese -- made their perspective clear for all to see.  He
>said, "If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." (Of
>course, he said that *before* criminal investigators began investigating
>*him* around 1988.)
>
>And all the polls show that the public *supports* whatever it is that the
>administration is doing, including demolition of [other people's] personal
>privacy and civil liberties.
>
>All 'Right'-minded, properly-subservient citizens and business people
>should applaud this!  They're from the government; they're here to help us.
>
>--jim
>Jim Warren; jwarren at well.com, technology & public policy columnist & advocate
>
>[self-inflating puffery: Playboy Foundation Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award;
>Soc.of Prof.Journalists-Nor.Calif. James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award;
>founded InfoWorld, Dr.Dobb's Journal, and Computers, Freedom & Privacy Confs.;
>Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer Award (in its first year), blah blah]
>
>
>And if you think this is something new, remember the 1995 Republican
>Congress' legislation to legalize use of evidence obtained by unauthorized
>search -- as reported by Farber on his IP list at the time:
>
>So long, Fourth Amendment
>From: David Farber <farber at central.cis.upenn.edu>
>Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 17:36:57 -0500
>... (Fri Jan 27), the House Judiciary Committee approved this abrogation
>of the Fourth Amendment, on a 19-14 vote, after breaking it out of H.R.3,
>"The Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995":
>
>   In General.--Chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
> adding at the end the following:
>   "Sec. 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure
>   "(a) Evidence Obtained by Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure.--
> Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not
> be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground
> that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to
> the Constitution of the United States, if the search or seizure was
> carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief
> that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that
> evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant
> constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances.
>   "(b) Evidence Not Excludable by Statute or Rule.--Evidence shall not be
> excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground
> that it was obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule or
> regulation, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is expressly
> authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court
> pursuant to statutory authority.
>
> From S.3, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Improvement Act
> of 1995 (still pending [in February, 1995] before the Senate Judiciary
> Committee):
>
>   "Sec. 3502A. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure
>   "(a) Evidence Obtained by Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure.--
> Evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure that is otherwise
> admissible in a Federal criminal proceeding shall not be excluded in a
> proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the search
> or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
>"(b) Evidence Not Excludable by Statute or Rule.--Evidence shall not be
>excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground
>that it was obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule, or
>a rule of court procedure unless exclusion is expressly authorized by
>statute or by a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to chapter
>131 of title 28.

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/