by Jerry Berman
Friday, Oct. 05, 2001 at 5:34 AM
Center for Democracy and Technology (shortened for publishing reasons)
This statement, given by Jerry Berman before the Senate Judiciary Committee gives a decent short history and a good explanation about what both the ATA and PATRIOT bills will affect on the separation of powers between Federal Investagatory Branches (FBI, CIA, ATF, INS etc..) and also on how the weaking of net privacy laws weakens democracy.
Testimony of Jerry Berman
Executive Director
Center for Democracy & Technology
before the
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights
on
Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism
October 3, 2001
Summary
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on the momentous
question of improving our nation's defenses against terrorism in a manner
consistent with our fundamental Constitutional liberties.
CDT joins the nation in grief and anger over the devastating loss of life
resulting from the September 11 terrorist hijackings and attacks against the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like many, our relatively small staff
had friends and acquaintances killed in those heinous acts. We strongly
support the efforts of our government to hold accountable those who direct
and support such atrocities.
We know from history, however, that measures hastily undertaken in times of
peril - particularly measures that weaken controls on government exercise of
coercive or intrusive powers - often infringe civil liberties without
enhancing security. For that reason, we harbor serious reservations about
several bills currently under discussion in this Subcommittee and elsewhere
on Capitol Hill. In particular, we are deeply concerned about the
Administration's proposed "Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001" (ATA). A
recently-circulated alternate package, the Sensenbrenner-Conyers "Provide
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT)
Act," removes or changes a very few concerns in ATA, but retains most of the
provisions damaging to civil liberties. The concerns we raise in this
testimony, unless otherwise noted, apply equally to both bills.
We are deeply concerned about the impact of these bills on constitutional
liberties, most particularly in two areas.
First, the ATA and PATRIOT Act tear down the "wall" between the government's
authority to conduct counter-intelligence surveillance against foreign
powers and terrorist groups, and its authority to conduct criminal
investigations of Americans. In the post-Watergate era, Congress carefully
constrained the government from inappropriately mixing its foreign
intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, since such mixing would
greatly infringe Americans' constitutional freedoms. The current bills
eviscerate that division. Both would change the "primary purpose" standard
that permits exceptional surveillance but only when counter-intelligence is
"the" primary purpose of an investigation. Instead, the bills would make
these extraordinary powers open to all investigations in which
counter-intelligence is "a" (or, in the PATRIOT Act, "a significant")
purpose (Sec. 153). As a result, they would permit law enforcement to use
constitutionally suspect surveillance techniquessecret searches, bugs, and
wiretappingÜagainst Americans in criminal investigations without the
protections that Congress originally intended. Besides damaging the civil
liberties of law-abiding Americans who may have their communications
subjected to secret interception, the bill raises the possibility that
criminal prosecutions pursued in this way could be thrown out on
constitutional grounds.
At the same time, the ATA and PATRIOT Act allow data collected in a criminal
investigation to be shared widely, without judicial review and regardless of
whether those activities serve a law enforcement or counter-intelligence
purpose (Sec. 154). This would include the content of Title III wiretaps and
evidence presented to grand juries, both of which are traditionally
protected under law. Such a revision to the law would permit such troubling
activities as the development by the CIA or other intelligence agencies of
dossiers for Americans not suspected of any criminal activity.
Second, the ATA and PATRIOT Act broadly expand the government's ability to
conduct electronic surveillance and diminish the rights of Americans online.
The most problematic sections in this regard are:
* SECTION 101. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY. Both ATA and
PATRIOT would extend to the Internet the current, extremely permissive
authority to collect telephone numbers dialed to or from a specific
telephone line. But as drafted for Internet, this proposal would
provide the government with much more detailed information about a
monitored user. It would include not only e-mail addresses, but also
URLs detailing activities such as search queries, books browsed, and
online purchases. Those monitored do not need to be under
investigation, and judges must issue these orders upon a showing of
mere relevance, not probable cause.
* SECTION 106. INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER COMMUNICATIONS. Both
ATA and the PATRIOT Act (Sec. 105) say that anyone accessing a computer
"without authorization" has no privacy rights and can be tapped by the
government without a court order, if the operator of the computer
system agrees. This provision eviscerates current protections for
electronic communications. Relatively minor violations of an ISP's
terms of service - such as using foul language or downloading a
copyrighted MP3 file - would allow an ISP to turn over all of that
person's communications without the government obtaining a judicial
warrant.
A range of other provisions further expand the government's surveillance
authority, including:
* SECTION 152. MULTI-POINT WIRETAP AUTHORITY. Authorizes FISA "roving"
wiretaps, but more broadly than under current criminal law and without
necessary guidelines or restrictions on this authority. Thus, if a
surveillance target is suspected of using a library computer, then all
communications from that library computer might be monitored. We
believe a better solution would be to limit this authority's extent to
those devices under the control of a surveillance target.
* SECTION 155. PEN REGISTER/TRAP AND TRACE CONTROLS. Eliminates the only
meaningful statutory control (judicial supervision, and a showing that
the target is connected to a foreign power or terrorist organization)
that exists on use of pen registers and trap and trace devices in
intelligence cases.
* SECTION 154. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION SHARING. Permits
distribution of information gathered in criminal investigations -
including grand jury information and Title III wiretaps - to a huge
number of government employees not involved in law enforcement, without
judicial supervision..
* SECTION 156. BUSINESS RECORDS. Allows access to any business records
based only on the demand of an FBI agent for intelligence or terrorism
investigations with no judicial review or oversight.
* SECTION 157. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL-SECURITY AUTHORITIES. Amends
several key privacy laws, allowing much greater access to banking,
credit, and other consumer records in counter-intelligence
investigations, with no judicial review or any showing that such
records are relevant to the investigation of a foreign or terrorist
agent.
Mr. Chairman, we commend you and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing,
and taking the time to consider the legislative proposals put forth by the
Administration. Only through the hearing process can you and the American
public understand what is being proposed, how it would change current law,
and whether the changes are responsive to any deficiencies that the
September 11 attack may have revealed. Just as President Bush and his
military advisers are taking their time in planning their response, to
ensure that they hit the terrorist targets with a minimum of collateral
damage, so it is incumbent upon this Congress to avoid collateral damage to
the Constitution.
Context: Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering Authorities
As you well know, the current legal structure of the intelligence community
was established after Watergate both to improve intelligence and to ensure
that the rights of Americans were not eroded by the vast and sometimes vague
intelligence authorities that had previously existed. The legal and
oversight system for intelligence sprang not just from a concern about civil
liberties, but also from a concern about improving the efficacy of
intelligence gathering.
A number of the provisions of the Attorney General's bill would change
provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). As
the Subcommittee is well aware, FISA gave the FBI and the CIA extremely
broad authority to investigate terrorism and to conduct counter-intelligence
not only against foreign nationals here in the U.S., but also against
American citizens suspected of involvement with terrorist groups. Unlike
criminal law, where high standards of government conduct vigorously protect
constitutional rights, FISA makes a special exemption for the intelligence
community, permitting it to place wiretaps, install bugs, and conduct secret
searches without showing probable cause of criminal conduct, giving notice,
or even turning the results of the surveillance over to a court for later
review. Through FISA, our intelligence community has authority to
investigate a sweeping array of individuals and organizations, and through
such investigations to defend against acts of terrorism.
Congress designed the FISA statute to be effective, but it recognized that
such broad investigative powers, if misapplied, could threaten Americans'
constitutional rights. Congress therefore demanded that the powers bestowed
by FISA be strongly contained, and that a clear separation - a wall - be
erected between the unique and broad standards for surveillance described in
FISA, and those used in the rest of the criminal justice system. In
particular, Congress wanted to ensure that surveillance under FISA would not
be initiated for the purpose of criminal investigations, since such would
circumvent the careful protections built into the criminal system. Rules
were installed that carefully constrained FISA's usage, and the "wall"
precluded information collected through FISA investigations from being used
in criminal ones except in cases where the surveillance was initiated and
maintained for broader foreign intelligence purposes.
Comments on Administration Proposals
The ATA and the PATRIOT Act would expand already-broad federal government
authorities to conduct electronic surveillance and otherwise collect
information not only on foreign nationals but on American citizens, while
sidestepping constitutional protections. As described above, the bills do
not adequately control that expansion, and as a result they damage civil
liberties in two ways.
Both bills would change the "primary purpose" standard that permits FISA's
exceptional standards to be used only when counter-intelligence is "the"
primary purpose of an investigation. Instead, the ATA and PATRIOT Act
propose to open FISA to all investigations in which counter-intelligence is
"a" (or, in the PATRIOT Act, "a significant") purpose (Sec. 153). Such a
change clearly threatens the "wall" Congress erected between the
government's normal police authority and its special counter-intelligence
powers, with the end result of substantially reducing American's
constitutional protections before the government. The ATA and PATRIOT Act
would thus permit law enforcement to use constitutionally suspect
surveillance techniquesÜ secret searches, bugs, and wiretappingÜagainst
Americans in criminal investigations without the protections that Congress
originally intended. Besides damaging the civil liberties of law-abiding
Americans who may have their communications subjected to secret
interception, the bill raises the possibility that criminal prosecutions
pursued using FISA could be thrown out on constitutional grounds.
At the same time, the ATA and PATRIOT Act allow data collected in a criminal
investigation to be shared widely and used for any number of activities,
without judicial review and regardless of whether those activities serve a
law enforcement or counter-intelligence purpose (Sec. 154). Information that
could be shared would include the content of Title III wiretaps and evidence
presented to grand juries, both of which are traditionally protected under
law. Certainly, the government's law enforcement and intelligence
communities should be encouraged to work together, but the terms of their
cooperation should be carefully defined, with, standards that serve the dual
purposes of national security and civil liberties.
Such a lack of controls on the government's ability to share and distribute
information about American citizens - no matter the purpose for which it was
collected - leads to a situation in which entire communities (such as the
American Islamic community) might have a surveillance net cast over them by
the government's counter-intelligence arm. It leads to the possibility that
American citizens disagreeing with the policies of a sitting Administration
would have their activities monitored and logged, and dossiers created for
them at the CIA or FBI. And it creates the risk that, in our desire for a
nation as secure in the future as it has been in the past, we might
sacrifice the elements of freedom that made this country as strong as it is.
Even as the ATA and PATRIOT Act alter the division between FISA and the
government's normal police powers, they also include numerous, complex
provisions extending the surveillance laws, particularly regarding the
Internet, even as both bills raise many questions about how such provisions
will be implemented. Many of the changes are not related to security
concerns raised by the September 11 terrorist attacks. Many are not limited
to terrorism cases, but relate to criminal investigations. Some have been
proposed by the Justice Department before, and some have been rejected by
Congressional committees before, based on their breadth and their impact on
liberty.
The proposed language includes sweeping revisions such as a modification of
the pen register standard that would allow the government to intercept the
content of some Internet communications without any fourth amendment
protection (Sec. 101) and a new authority for Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) to authorize government surveillance of their users' Internet
connections (Sec. 106 in ATA, Sec. 105 in PATRIOT Act). Other changes
include the so-called "roving wiretap" authority (Sec. 152), which would
permit the government to intercept, for example, all Internet communications
coming from a public Internet terminal (no matter who is using it) if a
suspected terrorist is seen using that terminal.
As technology develops, so too should the government's ability to carry out
its law enforcement and counter-terrorism functions. But injudicious changes
such as those proposed in the ATA and the PATRIOT Act threaten basic
freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. We therefore urge this Subcommittee
and the law enforcement and intelligence communities to take a more limited,
surgical approach to expanding government powers, both online and off.
A more detailed analysis of the Administration's bill follows below. Once
again, we appreciate and commend this Subcommittee's efforts to gather
public input and to hold this hearing today. We hope the Subcommittee will
move forward with those provisions of its bill and the Administration's bill
that are non-controversial and responsive to the tragic attacks of September
11, but will defer on the other more complex and divisive provisions that we
have identified. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and staff
to craft an appropriate response at this perilous moment in our country's
history, and to avoid a rush to judgment on legislation that could
ultimately imperil both freedom and security.
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit, public interest
organization dedicated to promoting civil liberties and democratic values
for the new digital communications media. Our core goals include enhancing
privacy protections and preserving the open architecture of the Internet.
Among other activities, CDT coordinates the Digital Privacy and Security
Working Group (DPSWG), a forum for more than 50 computer, communications,
and public interest organizations, companies and associations working on
information privacy and security issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Speech | Data Privacy | Government Surveillance | Cryptography |
Domain Names | International | Bandwidth | Security | Internet Standards,
Technology and Policy Project | Terrorism | Authentication | Right to Know
[Navigation bar]
Our Mission / Get Involved / Staff / Publications / Links / Search CDT /
Jobs / Action!
Previous Headlines | Legislative Tracking | CDT's Privacy Policy
©2001 The Center For Democracy &
Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
[Valid CSS!] [Bobby Approved (v 3.2)] (v) 202.637.9800
(f) 202.637.0968
Technical concerns about this
site: webmaster@cdt.org
Concerns or opinions about
issues: feedback@cdt.org
www.cdt.org
Original: Terrorist Bills' effects on online privacy and separation of powers