|
E big brother { April 18 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://msn.com.com/2100-1105-886259.htmlhttp://msn.com.com/2100-1105-886259.html
Privacy: Watching out for Big Brother
By Lisa M. Bowman
Special to ZDNet News
April 18, 2002, 11:45 AM PT
SAN FRANCISCO--In a post-Sept. 11 world, the technical opportunities for
surveillance seem endless: national identification cards, face-recognition
systems and video cameras on street corners.
But who will ensure that those technologies are not abused in the name of
protecting citizens from terrorism?
Technologists, free-speech experts and general hangers-on are grappling with
that question and others at the Computers Freedom & Privacy conference here
this week.
The conference, normally a forum for digerati to pose a series of
frightening "what if" scenarios, has morphed into an event where
participants' worst surveillance nightmares may be poised to come true
following the terrorist attacks.
They point to the six-month-old Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement
unprecedented power to monitor citizens' habits--including Web and e-mail
use. In addition, they worry that cities are increasingly adopting
surveillance techniques under the guise of homeland security.
But conference attendees' attempt to defend civil liberties in the face of
mounting security measures is more of an uphill battle than ever before. The
public's tolerance of surveillance increased dramatically after Sept. 11,
and members of the Bush administration are leveraging their high approval
rating to expand monitoring.
Speakers worried that law enforcement agencies could rush to implement
technology that's ineffective and invasive--and that the tech industry would
help them.
"The homeland security budget is pork for the IT industry," said Andrew
Schulman, chief researcher of the Privacy Foundation.
Speaking during a panel on national ID cards, Schulman and others said plans
to identify all citizens could lead to efforts to track them. The American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is working on a system that
would link records from different states, prompting fears that law
enforcement agencies would use personal information to invade citizens'
privacy.
Questions about the system--which is in its nascent stages--include who
would have access to the information, how they would use it, and whether
citizens would be notified. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has
filed a suit against the federal Office of Homeland Security that seeks
answers to such questions.
Answering the critics
The Patriot Act, a law passed in October that expands law enforcement power,
drew particular scorn.
Some speakers said they have been doubly frustrated by the Patriot Act
itself and by the lack of information about monitoring activities taking
place as the result of the measure. Author James Bamford called the act the
"eavesdropping equivalent of weapons of mass destruction."
Jerry Berman, executive director of technology policy group the Center for
Democracy and Technology, reiterated many of the concerns that were voiced
as the law was being considered last October, saying the bill's backers
resisted public discussion in an attempt to obtain new monitoring
capabilities.
"It is a very serious civil liberties danger," Berman said.
A few law enforcement representatives attended the conference. Panelist
Chris Painter of the U.S. Department of Justice spent much of his time
defending the Patriot Act, saying criticism of the measure has been full of
"misstatement and hyperbole."
"There was ample debate," Painter said of the act's passage, drawing a few
jeers from the audience.
Ron Davis, a captain in the Oakland, Calif., Police Department, said law
enforcement officials should participate in more discussions about
technology and its role in fighting crime.
"I find it interesting that law enforcement isn't really at the table,"
Davis said during a session on biometric technology. Many police departments
are considering or already implementing face-recognition systems and other
biometric measures in an attempt to capture criminals. "Once you bring (the
technology) to us, it's too late."
|
|
