The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC have brought
calls for greater government access to personal information, though
privacy specialists are calling for a cautious approach to be
taken, believing that checks and balances are still necessary.
The realization by the US government that terrorists are active
its borders has alerted federal authorities to the need for wider
surveillance powers. Lawmakers are keen to introduce measures that
could allow law enforcement agencies unprecedented levels of access
to previously private information concerning private individuals
and companies.
In the wake of the attacks, Senators voted to expand existing
wire-tapping laws to incorporate internet technology.
Under previous legislation, the FBI was able to obtain lists of
telephone numbers dialled simply by informing a magistrate that the
information was relevant to a criminal investigation — a much lower
threshold than the level of evidence necessary to gain approval for
phone tapping.
Sources indicated that the Congress would not approve the
legislation, but some equivalent, though perhaps weaker, measures
will be incorporated into new anti-terrorist laws.
Interpretation of the new legislation could mean that the FBI
can see the parties to which emails are being are being sent, when
they are sent, and the length of the messages.
The information largely concerns records of correspondence, thus
the threat to an individual's privacy is potentially greater than
that to a corporation, but there is concern among some lawyers and
privacy campaigners that the coming months could see a number of
laws passed which curtail existing privacy protection rules for
both sides.
"People in the US are scared at the moment," said Martin Abrams,
who leads the Centre for In
 |
| Martin Abrams |
formation Policy Leadership, a legal consultancy advising
clients on information policy, security, privacy and intellectual
property issues. "They want their civil liberties preserved, but
safety at the same time. They don't want anyone prying into their
own lives, but they want to feel sure that the necessary powers are
there to make sure the guy sat next to them on their flight is not
a terrorist. It really is a case of civil liberties for me but not
my neighbour."
Abrams said he believed that such privacy issues are not being
addressed and that checks and balances are still necessary to
control law enforcement agencies.
Abrams said the Bush administration — which is yet to take on a
privacy chief — did not see privacy as a priority even before the
attacks and it has now pushed privacy farther down its list of
priorities, with the Federal Trade Commission taking some
responsibility for protecting consumers.
This had led to no government leadership on the issue of
privacy, allowing opponents of privacy regulation to further their
proposals without being challenged.
"There is no overarching leadership," said Abrams, explaining
that he believed the Department of Commerce should take a greater
role in assuming such a mantle. "There is a need for some kind of
leadership to balance civil liberties with protection against
terrorism," he said.
The Center for Democracy and Technology is also concerned over
privacy. "We should resist the temptation to change laws quickly
while passions are understandably high or enact proposals in the
mistaken belief that anything that may be called anti-terrorist
will necessarily provide greater security," it said in a statement
released in the days following the attacks.
Others have said such arguments have already been lost.
Stewart Baker, head of technology in the Washington DC office of
Steptoe & Johnson, said he believed a more important question
concerns what happens to personal information once it has been
passed to law agencies.
"There is no doubt that the overall effect of the measures is to
reduce privacy and place more information in the hands of the
police," said Baker. "I think it is reasonable to ask what kind of
controls there will be on the information held."
