In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the worry in Washington, D.C., was more about national security than about individual privacy. A couple days after the terror attacks, the U.S. Senate voted to grant the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . . In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the worry in Washington, D.C., was more about national security than about individual privacy. A couple days after the terror attacks, the U.S. Senate voted to grant the Federal Bureau of Investigation sweeping Internet surveillance powers that in some cases would not require a judge's approval. Huge portions of that bill, self-importantly titled the Combating Terrorism Act, eventually became part of the even more grandly named law called the USA Patriot Act. Soon after the law's enactment, Attorney General John Ashcroft began likening criticism of such dubious legislation to the treasonous offense of "aiding terrorists." Noted civil libertarians such as Alan Dershowitz began to suggest that entrepreneurial judges could issue "torture warrants" against suspected terrorists, while automated face-recognition cameras began popping up in airports, and politicians began scheming about how to ban encryption products without backdoors for government snoops. Suffice to say that privacy was not exactly paramount in everyone's mind. But as the two-year anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches, there are signs that Congress realizes it went too far in allowing electronic surveillance and other invasions of personal privacy. . In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the worry in Washington, D.C., was more about national. immediate, aftermath, worry, washington, about, national. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
One year after September 11, personal privacy is an international casualty in the war on terror. It has now been one year since the horrific events of September 11th, 2001. It is often said that "everything has changed." That includes privacy, . . . . One year after September 11, personal privacy is an international casualty in the war on terror. It has now been one year since the horrific events of September 11th, 2001. It is often said that "everything has changed." That includes privacy, and the changes are not limited to the United States. Outside the U.S., the war on terrorism has pulled in many of the previous anti-privacy campaigns, and created new ones. The most obvious changes are the enactments of new anti-terrorism or related laws. Many countries have taken advantage of the situation including Australia, Belarus, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Other countries have amended data protection, wiretap and privacy laws and regulations to make surveillance easier. There has also been some pushback by legislatures, courts and citizens to many of the worst ideas. One of the first things brought into the war on terrorism was the war on cyber-crime. As the scare-a-week pronouncements from our cyber-war czars tell us, Bin Laden's minions are going to get us through our computers next. Really. Honest. The result has been the new global effort led by the U.S. through the G-8 to require ISPs and other telecommunications providers to build in surveillance capabilities -- not just to intercept selected communications, but to monitor and record all user communications and activities and keep the records for years, just in case someone later turn out to be a terrorist, or is suspected of some cybercrime like not paying their Microsoft licensing fee. The link for this article located at SecurityFocus is no longer available. . One year after September 11, personal privacy is an international casualty in the war on terror. It . september, personal, privacy,international, casualty, terror. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
Now at the start of 2002, British surveillance laws are at risk of infringing what are seen by some as basic human rights. Huge demands have been placed on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to stockpile traffic data on customers under the new Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (ATCS),. . .. Now at the start of 2002, British surveillance laws are at risk of infringing what are seen by some as basic human rights. Huge demands have been placed on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to stockpile traffic data on customers under the new Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (ATCS), and the Information Commissioner has characterised the requirements as "disproportionate general surveillance". Traffic data collected under the voluntary Code of Practice within the ATCS would provide a "complete map of a person's private life" according to the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIRP). Records will include an individual's geographical location determined through their mobile phone, the sender and recipient information from emails, a complete log of a person's Internet sessions including their IP address, and the address of all Web sites visited. The Data Protection Act 1998 states that a communications provider must only retain traffic data for the length of time necessary for legitimate billing purposes. But contained within the Act is a provision for cases of national security, where personal data may be stored for longer periods of time in order to assist in the prevention or detection of crime. The link for this article located at ZDNet UK is no longer available. . Now at the start of 2002, British surveillance laws are at risk of infringing what are seen by some . start, british, surveillance, infringing. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.