User:Krystie Harman

==Krystie==
Krystie Harman

Krystie Harman 19:20, 29 Jul 2004 (EST)

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

===Internet Privacy issues within the USA PATRIOT Act===

Berry-Helmlinger, L. (2002) "Online privacy issues less important after terrorist attacks," Denver Business Journal vol.54, iss.5, p. A17.

This article provides details of the measures the US government is taking to prevent future terrorist attacks. It provides details of the anti-terrorism legislation passed by the US House and Senate (the Uniting and Strengthening America Act and the USA PATRIOT Act), which is marking a defined shift from previous legislation concerning privacy rights. The new law gives the federal government the right to search citizen's homes and trace the email and internet use of all citizens more easily. This article provides short details of the arguments for and against this law, and gives examples of how this law can be used to invade people privacy. The author believes that these laws have enabled heightened security measures on consumer information online with the Online Personal Privacy Act. However, the USA Patriot Act would still enable the government to access this information.

Broersma, C. (2004) "Privacy is your prerogative - or is it?", Business Journal - Central New York vol.18, iss.24, p. 9.

This article describes the growing concern for adequate privacy and security measures with the continuing growth of internet use. It focuses on privacy issues in relation to on-line businesses, the USA PATRIOT Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). It gives information on a study conducted by Consumer International which reviewed 700 websites and found that the majority of websites reviewed collected personal information without delivering proper security to that information. The USA Patriot Act gives the USA government the right to intercept communications of all types (including telephone and email), which invades the privacy of average Americans. COPPA was formed to protect the privacy of children aged under 13. Tim Berners-Lee is trying to provide a standardisation of consumer-privacy preferences, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) so users can gain control over the use of their personal information on web sites they visit.

Brown, D. (2001) “Civil liberties groups to fight expanded government snooping,� Interactive Week vol.8, iss.37, pp. 13-14.

This article describes the discontent of civil libertarians over the Department of Justice’s proposal to expand its wiretapping and surveillance capabilities. This article describes how the internet and other communication technologies have become embroiled in the US government’s war on terrorism. Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Centre for Democracy and Technology believes the new law, if passed by congress, would enable authorities to have new powers to freely monitor American citizens on their phone and online. Dempsey provides information on which aspects of the proposal will invade people’s privacy the most, including low standards used in foreign and domestic intelligence gathering and the use of easily gained administrative subpoenas to demand business records. This article questions the privacy rights of American citizens, and the impact this proposal could possible have on consumer security and the future of e-business.

Carbone, G. (2004) “Inside the PATRIOT Act – Day 3 – Snooping of e-mail, voice mail made easier for federal agents,� The Providence Journal, 6 July, p.A-01.

The USA PATRIOT Act changed laws to make it easier for government to conduct surveillance in the US. This article outlines which specific sections of the Act which make it easier for federal agents to conduct this surveillance. This article was part of a series that examined the more controversial areas and implications of the PATRIOT Act. Section 216, for example, permits agents to trace e-mail and monitor internet activities to discover who people correspond with and which web sites they visit. To gain this information, agents have to certify to a federal judge that they intend to monitor your computer based on suspicion that information uncovered will aid an investigation. This differentiates from obtaining a search warrant which seeks the court’s permission rather than informs the court of their actions. This article gives detailed information on specific sections of the Act which infringe people’s privacy in their internet and e-mail usage.

Krystie Harman 11:14, 12 Aug 2004 (EST)

Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) (2004) The USA PATRIOT Act, retrieved 12 August, 2004, from http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

This web page gives a history and overview of the USA PATRIOT Act. When introducing the bill, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week to pass the bill without changes, using the threat of more terrorist attacks as an incentive. It tells that the bill was introduced quickly, without any House, Senate or conference report. The USA PATRIOT Act gives the government more investigative authority, especially in regards to the internet. However, the Act did not provide a system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguard civil liberties. This web page outlines the changes this Act made to US law, including amendments to bills such as:

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
• Right to Financial Privacy Act
• Wiretap Statute.

This web site also analyses specific USA PATRIOT Act provisions in detail.

Lacayo, R., Goldstein, A., Taylor, C., and Bland, E. (2001) “Terrorizing Ourselves,� Time vol.158, iss.13, p. 92.

This article looks at the freedom that American’s will have to relinquish as a result of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. This article was written shortly after the attacks and looks at the immediate security measure the US has taken. American’s, the article says, are unfriendly to security measures that invade their personal privacy. This article was written before the PATRIOT Act, but internet privacy issues have already surfaced. This article provides information on the security measures taken one day after the attacks, with the senate approved a provision which will allow law-enforcement agencies to force internet service providers to give them information about subscriber’s emails. This article also raises the issue of ‘racial profiling’ at airports and also in national identification cards. Civil libertarians are concerned that Arab Americans, poor people and coloured people will be the target of new surveillance measures. Morton Halperin (senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) believes that if security and civil liberties are both taken seriously, solutions can be found that still respect an individual's rights and privacy whilst giving intelligence and law-enforcement agencies the scope they need.

McElligott, T. (2001) �Defense proposals spark reluctant privacy debate,� Telephony vol.241, iss.13, p.9.

This article is a comprehensive look at the internet privacy debate surrounding the anti-terrorism legislation (the PATRIOT Act) proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the United States Congress, focussing on technological issues. The article outlines the proposed bill, and how it will make it easier for law-enforcement agencies to obtain and enforce wire-taps. This article brings up the issue that these measures will particularly be used on digital of packet-mode technologies. This article highlights the concerns regarding the proposed bill, especially about how the bill will be used. Service providers can access packet-mode communications, but they can not filter data to limit law enforcement’s access to the information. This means that law enforcement agents will be accessing more information than the law allows them to access. Service providers are calling for the law to be clear, and the use of new technology, so they can protect the public’s privacy.

Krystie Harman 12:36, 12 Aug 2004 (EST)

Rosenzweig, P. (2004) “USA PATRIOT Act: Truth is, law has saved lives,� The Baltimore Sun, 8 August, p.3J.

This article gives a current view of the USA PATRIOT Act. Although demonized now, the Patriot Act passed with large support in 2001. The author of this article supports the PATRIOT Act and outlines what the act has done to save the US from future terrorism. His examples include aiding the prosecution of people involved in an al-Qaida drugs-for-weapons plot, and the prosecution of Enaam Arnaout, who had personal connections to Osama bin Laden. Rosenzweig believes the act was vital to protecting America’s security. Before this act, law enforcement and intelligence agencies were limited by law in what information they could share with each other. He says that there have been no abuses of the PATRIOT Act, and no instances where it has been used to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties. The government’s obligation is to provide security against violence and preserve civil liberty. The PATRIOT Act meets this goal by allowing the government to gain relevant information, while preventing abuses of authority.

Smith, M., Seifert, J., McLaughlin, G., and Moteff, J. (2002) CRS Report for Congress: The Internet and the USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Electronic Privacy, Security, Commerce and Government, retrieved August 12, 2004, from http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/RL31289.pdf

This report, written by the Congressional Research Service, summarises the effect that the Act has on electronic privacy, security commerce and government. It also identifies issues arising from the implementation of the Patriot Act. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks prompted the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act. This report shows how the Act can provide law enforcement officials with greater authorities to monitor internet activity. The report looks at the issues arising from authorities enabled to better track terrorist and criminal activity, such as intrusions on citizen’s privacy rights. This, the report says, may threaten the what US citizen's view as the fundamental principle of democracy – privacy. This report recognises the controversial nature of the Act regarding privacy, and states that Congress and other groups will monitor how the Act is implemented.

Turley, J. (2004) “US PATRIOT Act: Act targeting non-terrorists,� The Baltimore Sun, 8 August, p.3J.

This article describes how the PATRIOT Act, while being heralded as “al-Qaida’s worst nightmare�, has been used to apply anti-terrorism laws to citizens with no ties to al-Qaida or terrorism. John Ashcroft attempts to show evidence that the PATRIOT Act saves lives, but omits facts that undermine the claim, such as local prosecutors using terrorism laws against conventional criminals, such as street gangs. Ashcroft has also used the PATRIOT Act to bring terrorist charges against Greenpeace, nuns, artists and college professors. This article outline’s the results of the PATRIOT Act and how the Act can easily target non-terrorists, and invade innocent citizen’s civil rights and privacy.

Krystie Harman 13:51, 12 Aug 2004 (EST)
Krystie Harman 18:47, 12 Aug 2004 (EST) Krystie Harman 13:52, 13 Aug 2004 (EST)