The Digital Reichstag

In the wake of the WTC attack, the US State is rushing through legislation that increases surveillance powers whilst abrogating the Constitution and basic civil rights

In his 1998 testimony before the Senate intelligence committee, Louis J. Freeh, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, complained that the use of encryption in public communications was preventing law enforcement access to critical evidence. 'From 1995 to 1996,' he claimed, 'there was a two-fold increase (from 5 to 12) in the number of instances where the FBI's court-authorized electronic efforts were frustrated by the criminal's use of encryption that did not allow for law enforcement access. Over the last two years, the FBI has also seen the number of computer-related cases utilising encryption and/or password protection increase from two percent to seven percent, to include the use of 56 bit Data Encryption Standard (DES) and 128 bit "Pretty Good Privacy" (PGP) encryption.'

Freeh went on to argue that the FBI needed a set of provisions that would 'require all [...] encryption products and services to contain features that would allow for the immediate access by law enforcement to the "plaintext" of encrypted criminal-related communications or electronically stored data.' In other words, the fact that the FBI had been thwarted by encryption in *a whole twelve* of the thousands of cases it investigates every year meant that the entire US public (if not the whole world) should forgo its right to privacy and freedom from state surveillance. This startling logic was backed up with one notable example: that of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the 'mastermind' of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing captured in 1995. Freeh said that when the authorities seized Yousef's laptop , they found that it held information on a terrorist plot to blow up 11 American-owned airliners - and that some of the files on its hard drive were (shock! horror!) encrypted.

Now, following the attacks on New York and Washington DC, the Bush administration has presented Congress with a proposed anti-terrorism package which would greatly enhance the government's ability to conduct domestic surveillance and which has already caused concern among civil liberties groups. The 'Mobilization Against Terrorism Act' proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, which the US Senate spent a scant 30 minutes debating this week and which could be passed in the next couple of days, would give the government unprecedented authority to surveil American citizens - even to the point of violating the precious Fourth Amendment.

Provisions of the proposed Act include measures which make it possible to obtain e-mail data and web browsing patterns without a wiretap order and remove controls on roving wiretaps. They also permit law enforcement to disclose information obtained through wiretaps to any employee of the Executive branch, grand juries to provide information to the US intelligence community, the President to designate any 'foreign-directed individual, group, or entity,' including any United States citizen or organization, as a target for federal surveillance, prevent US citizens from even talking about terrorist acts, and establish a DNA database for every person convicted of any felony.

The proposals are being tacitly backed by some in the establishment press in the US. The New York times reported the story under the headline Technologies Erodes U.S. Edge in Spying' citing 'experts' who say the rapid growth of commercially available technologies is fast eroding the government's intelligence 'edge':

Wish they'd report which security experts. More likely such comments are emanating from the federal officials like Freeh who have been militating for increased surveillance capabilities for years. Clearly the tragedy caused by the attacks on New York and Washington is now providing the perfect paranoiac and frightened atmosphere to rush such legislation through, with dissenters thin on the ground. Even Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont's Democrat chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is opposing the proposals, has said he and Ashcroft 'probably agree on more than we disagree on.' Leahy's only objections are to the aspects of the bill outlining its vicious immigration provisions, which would allow authorities to detain or deport immigrants suspected of terrorism without presenting any evidence in court. And although others, including Bob Barr, a conservative Georgia Republican, have mentioned reservations about the expansion of monitoring Internet and electronic communication, nothing appears to be presenting any impediment to the Bill's swift progress into law.

It is hardly surprising that in these dark times the rodents should start coming out of the woodwork. Certain 'experts' have now surfaced to advise the governmnent that the time is right to introduce the key escrow provisions that met with such wide disapproval during the Clinton administration. Frank Sudia, who styles himself as 'programmer, lawyer, public policy analyst, co-founder of the CertCo encryption company, and creator of the "Bankers Trust Corporate Key Escrow System,' has suggested a route for Congress to take if they 'decided to require all encryption systems to be readable by authorized legal authorities.' Once again, such contol over private communications is impossible without a beefed up legislation backed by a slap-happy police state prepared to take a stand against freedom of speech itself. As one commentator on Declan McCullagh's Politech list has very neatly said,