Contents |
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 undoubtedly altered the global political landscape. The significant use of new media technologies by terrorist groups (Flew, 2002, p.201) have been targeted by recent amendments and introduction of new online anti-terrorism legislation in several countries around the world. The worldwide trend has been to toughen laws on terrorism, expanding the scope of what terrorism is and granting governing bodies greater powers to combat terrorism, often at the expense of civil liberties and privacy (Berry-Helmlinger, 2002, p.17). A case study of legislation in the United States (US) and Australia will highlight some of the recent changes and important issues that have arisen since the introduction of new online anti-terrorism laws and amendments since 11 September 2001.
The most notable legislation drafted since 2001 has been the USA PATRIOT Act (which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act). This act was signed into law in the US by President Bush on 26 October, 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks as a direct response to counteract terrorism (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2004). Privacy advocates and civil libertarians argue that the complex piece of legislation was introduced too quickly, lacking review by the US Congress or before sufficient debate could take place. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organisation that defends online freedoms and rights describes the USA PATRIOT Act as “one of the most significant threats to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions in U.S. history� (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2004). Some significant segments of the act include a greater ability given to the US Government to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence domestically, and the reduction of standards authorities need to prove to gain information (Post and Brown, 2002, p. 84). Thus the USA PATRIOT Act has eased access for government agencies to vital communications data of individuals, such as voice and electronic mail and internet surfing patterns.
Other provisions of the act permit authorities to conduct undisclosed searches of individuals without their knowledge or consent and the addition of terrorism and computer crime as justification for wiretaps of communication. This has attracted criticism from civil libertarian groups and activists, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (both American websites). Not only does the USA PATRIOT Act have impacts on an individual’s privacy and rights, it has potential effects on the communications industry.
Australia has followed suit with similar anti-terrorism legislation introduced here after September 11 2001. Similar to the situation in the US, amendments to local legislation has also given greater powers to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Australia. The Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 modified the previous act of 1979 to include delayed access messages such as electronic and voice mails as a form of communication (Parliament of Australia, 2002). Changes also included warrants for authorities to conduct telecommunication intercepts for the purpose of investigating offences of terrorism.
In both the US and Australia, it is evident that anti-terrorism legislation has supported a shift towards greater power for governments and authorities to investigate and combat terrorism, favouring security and authority over personal privacy. More information can be found at the links below.
Katrina Yuen 16:43, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)
Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2002
Electronic Frontier Foundation - USA PATRIOT ACT
Electronic Privacy Information Centre- USA PATRIOT ACT
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Online Political Activism
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Effects on the Communications Industry
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Privacy and Surveillance Issues
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Implications for Internet Content
Back to Online Anti-terrorism Legislation
Katrina Yuen 11:44, 29 Oct 2004 (EST)
Katrina Yuen 16:43, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)
