Farewell web freedom?

It has a patriotic name and patriotic intentions, but the USA Act also has some very un-democratic uses. How long until America's latest law comes here? By Bobbie Johnson

  • Share
  • Tweet this
  • spacer Email
  • MediaGuardian,

In a late-night session on Capitol Hill a little over a week ago, the US Senate passed a series of laws that could change the way we use the web for ever. The USA Act, as it was called, could result in some of the most draconian surveillance legislation ever to hit the internet. Civil liberties campaigners are distraught at the prospect of a world crackdown on web freedom because - in online terms, at least - where America leads, the rest of the world cannot be far behind.

In the wake of the September 11 tragedy, internet security is just one of the many freedoms that law-abiding Americans have been forced to give up in the name of the national interest. In what many are calling a knee-jerk reaction, politicians in Washington gave carte blanche to intelligence agencies, allowing them to monitor and observe the way people use the web. New measures were rushed through the system despite calls for a more moderate approach and the option of tabling a less harsh legislative package.

The USA Act replaced the more carefully worded Patriot Act, a less severe paper which was ditched after pressure from the Bush administration. Where the Patriot Act promised to give measured new powers to investigating authorities, its replacement gives the police a wide range of powerful new options. One of the most controversial is the ability to conduct secret searches, with surveillance freedom extended for up to five years at the pleasure of the president. Wire-tapping orders, which allow authorities to record the online activities of individuals, will be easier to obtain than ever - and could almost completely bypass judicial decisions. Once information has been collected (this includes content), the USA Act allows investigating officers to pass their findings on to nearly any other government department. Theoretically, this should only be used against designated terror suspects - in practice, it could be applied to almost anybody.

One of the leading forces behind the USA Act was Democratic senator Patrick Leahy, who sponsored it in the upper house. It was passed, with virtually no opposition, in a special late-night session after being rushed through without senators even being given time to debate the issue. Leahy was supported by Democrat Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, who was at the centre of Washington's anthrax scare when he received disease spores by mail last week.

Even those who forced the legislation through admit that it is far from perfect. "Despite my misgivings," said Leahy, a senator for Vermont, "I have acquiesced in some of the administration's proposals because it is important to preserve national unity in this time of crisis and to move the legislative process forward."

The lone voice of dissent in a Senate hungry to crack down on all perceived forms of terrorism was Russ Feingold, a Democrat representing Wisconsin. In the 96-to-one vote that allowed the USA Act to fly through the normal due process, Feingold was the sole senator to register his protest.

"Whilst it's very important that we give the Department of Justice and our intelligence agencies the tools they need to combat and prevent terrorism," said Feingold, "it is also crucial that civil liberties in this country be preserved, otherwise the terrorists will win the battle without firing another shot."

The one concession allowed by the USA Act was the possibility of further regulation for the FBI's much feared Carnivore operation, which involves agents setting up covert systems inside the operations of internet service providers, allowing them to gain full access to their targets. FBI operatives will typically install the specialised computer within the system of an internet provider, enabling them to track suspects and view their movements. The Carnivore system intercepts communications to or from the target, handing over their full content to the federal investigators. In a move to provide some protection against such wide-ranging surveillance, representative Richard Armey lobbied successfully that the USA Act keep provision to secure the bureau's system against abuse by federal agents.

American politicians believe that internet surveillance is a case of balancing personal freedoms against national security. Not only is this a false opposition, say campaigners, but it is one that threatens the constitutional rights of citizens.

"Security and civil liberties do not have to be at odds," says the American Civil Liberties Union (www.aclu.org). "Law enforcement authorities already have great leeway under current law to investigate suspects in terrorist attacks - including broad authority to monitor telephone and internet communications. In fact, under current law, judges have rejected only three federal or state criminal wire-tap requests in the last decade."

Campaigners believe that the USA Act can only lead to abuses of power by police and intelligence officers, conducted in a climate of fear and sponsored by politicians on all sides. These moves are, they say, less about preventing terrorism and more to do with intelligence agency agendas.

But for web users on this side of the pond, the question has to be whether Britain, famously standing "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, is next in line for draconian internet regulation? When home secretary David Blunkett revealed new anti-terror legislation last week, he laid the foundations for the US approach to be adopted over here. In his statement, Blunkett said that it was "the first job of government and the essence of democracy that we safeguard rights and freedoms, the most basic of which is to live safely and in peace".

Echoing the voices of politicians across the Atlantic, Blunkett went on to say that he was "determined to strike a balance between respecting our fundamental civil liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited".

His new package is set to increase powers outlined in last year's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and could open the way for more severe legislation in the future. The bill will instigate "measures to enable service providers to retain data, namely the records of calls made and other data - not the content. The legislative measures will protect and enhance our rights, not diminish them. Justice for individuals and minorities are reaffirmed, and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secured".

In Jack Straw's opinion, these are measures that could have been in place already if it hadn't been for staunch opposition from many quarters. After the horrific attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, the foreign secretary said that he believed that civil liberties campaigners had been "naive". Straw's statement implied that they had possibly prevented the detection of the 11 hijackers who passed through the UK prior to their suicide mission.

The reason that terrorists were able to pass through Britain was "not because of any lapse by the intelligence or security services", says Straw, "but because people have had a two-dimensional view of civil liberties". Even Blunkett did not believe this, however, admitting in an interview that "even with the best legislation and will in the world you can't apprehend everyone who passes through an international airport on their way to somewhere else".

Yaman Akdeniz, a lawyer who runs the UK-based group Cyber Rights & Cyber-Liberties (www.cyber-rights.org), thinks that the government is treading a dangerous path. "No one questions the failure of the security agencies to detect the crimes of September 11," says Akdeniz, who is based at Leeds University. "I am not so sure whether more surveillance will necessarily result in detection and prevention of such terrible crimes happening.

"Following the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, there is no need for the introduction of further legislation. Fighting of terrorism and criminals were the reasons behind the need for RIPA powers for law enforcement and security agencies. One needs to be very careful before introducing any further surveillance powers and any such proposal should be carefully scrutinised."

It's not only from lobbyists that the government faces criticism. Simon Hughes MP, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "If the government thinks that a law only just on the statute book needs changing literally a few months later, then they must come back with the argument and evidence."

Both sides stand behind their commitments. Ministers argue that the threat of terror is more important than individual freedoms. Campaigners believe that surveillance is wrong, and that to make snap decisions during a time of such political volatility can only cause problems further down the line.

But still the government stands firm. David Blunkett told the Commons: "The threat of terrorism has touched us all. If we fail now to take the necessary action to protect our people, future generations will never forgive us." Perhaps those who find themselves on the wrong side of a surveillance operation won't be forgiving either.

gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.