IP: Do read -- EFF statement on opposition to MATA/ATA (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, 23 Sep 2001 06:25:50 -0400
From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu
To: ip-sub-1 at 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/