Senate votes to permit warrantless Net-wiretaps, Carnivore use

[Declan McCullagh]

At 10:57 PM 9/14/01 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>This is seriously misleading.  Although there are a fair number of
>objectionable items in the bill (the worst of which are likely
>unconstitutional, though you'd have to explain protocol layering to a
>judge to make that point clear), the bill is concerned with pen
>registers and trap-and-trace devices.  It does not legalize
>"warrantless wiretaps".  And yes, Carnivore can be used more freely
>under this bill, but only in its pen register mode.

Steve,
I recognize that you may be going through a lot of mail, but the article is 
hardly "seriously misleading."

I made precisely the point you made myself (it doesn't appear that you read 
the article in its entirety, and based your comments on a brief excerpt):

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html
>Warrantless surveillance appears to be limited to the addresses of 
>websites visited, the names and addresses of e-mail correspondents, and so 
>on, and is not intended to include the contents of communications. But the 
>legislation would cover URLs, which include information such as what Web 
>pages you're visiting and what terms you type in when visiting search engines.

Pardon me for not taking much comfort from your assurance that Carnivore 
and its progeny can be used "only in its pen register mode." The URLs to 
web pages I visit, which can include search terms, and the identities of 
the people with whom I correspond, are important items that many people 
would consider private enough to require a court order.

Also, as a seperate note, Senate Judiciary committee aides told me they 
believe the wording of the bill -- apparently hastily-drafted -- may cover 
content of the communications, not just origin-desination information. If 
they're not sure, and they've had a full day to read it, how can you be so 
remarkably positive your interpretation is correct?

And even if you think it's unobjectionable, these sorts of measures might 
well deserve full, reasoned debate rather than being rushed through late in 
the night during a national emergency, two days after a brutal terrorist 
attack, and attached to a spending bill. (The spending bill doesn't even 
take effect for weeks, so clearly we could wait until next week and, gasp, 
convene a hearing.) Senators were given just half an hour or so to read a 
complicated wiretap bill before a scheduled vote.

Senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary committee and is not known 
for exaggerating privacy threats, was concerned enough to denounce the bill 
on the Senate floor during the late-night debate. Here's what he said:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s091301.html
>LEAHY: Maybe the Senate wants to just go ahead and adopt new abilities to 
>wiretap our citizens. Maybe they want to adopt new abilities to go into 
>people's computers. Maybe that will make us feel safer. Maybe. And maybe 
>what the terrorists have done made us a little bit less safe. Maybe they 
>have increased Big Brother in this country.

We can disagree about how concerned we should be about broader warantless 
surveillance powers -- one DC privacy group has already said this bill is 
the most disturbing change to wiretap laws since CALEA -- but dismissing 
concerns as "only pen register mode" seems a bit much.

-Declan




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com