Showdown looms over domestic spying
295206
Federal agents continue to eavesdrop on Americans' electronic communications without warrants a year after President Bush confirmed the practice, and experts say a new Congress' efforts to limit the program could trigger a constitutional showdown.
173509
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist introduces a bill that combines the controversial military commission bill with a bill radically expanding government spying power. But has this election year strategy been torpedoed by rogue Republicans? In 27B Stroke 6.
117428
Speculation swirls about the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications. In 27B Stroke 6.
150858
The Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed its own version of an anti-spyware bill, setting the stage for a showdown between it and a similar bill that went through another committee.
686952
A new exhibition in London lifts the lid on the real-life world of spying, amid concerns about a developing &quot;Big Brother&quot; society and its effects on individual freedoms and civil liberties.
665839
Islamic charity lawyers contend they were spied on during a period in which the Justice Department refused to bless the government spy program.  Their lawsuit may be the only one that can determine if the domestic spy program is legal.
350300
The U.S. Senate defeated on Tuesday an amendment that would take away legal immunity from telecommunications providers that helped the U.S. National Security Agency conduct surveillance on U.S. residents, earning criticism from two civil liberties groups.The Senate, by a 31-67 vote, defeated an amendment to the FISA Amendments Act, a bill that would make changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and allow the NSA program to continue. In the past, the NSA has conducted telephone and e-mail surveillance of U.S. citizens conversing with terrorist suspects overseas without court-approved warrants.The Senate was scheduled to vote on the full FISA bill late Tuesday.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) slammed the Senate vote. &quot;Immunity for telecom giants that secretly assisted in the NSA&#39;s warrantless surveillance undermines the rule of law and the privacy of every American,&quot; said EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston. &quot;Congress should let the courts do their job instead of helping the administration and the phone companies avoid accountability for a half decade of illegal domestic spying.&quot;It doesn&#39;t make sense for Congress to work hard on the FISA bill when the NSA and telecom providers can circumvent the law, added Greg Nojeim, CDT&#39;s senior counsel. &quot;The telecom immunity provision sends a message that it&#39;s OK for a telecom to assist with unlawful surveillance when secretly asked to do so by the government,&quot; he said.Democratic Senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin had sponsored the amendment to get rid of legal immunity for the telecom providers. AT&amp;T and other telecom carriers are being sued in U.S. court in San Francisco for their participation in the surveillance program, which many civil liberties groups say is illegal.Last month, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that it is &quot;entirely appropriate&quot; for U.S. intelligence agencies to seek help from private companies like telecom providers, because agencies don&#39;t have all the resources they need to keep the U.S. safe from terrorism.&quot;Some providers are facing dozens of lawsuits right now,&quot; Cheney said then. &quot;Why? Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.&quot;A House bill, passed in November, does not include legal immunity for telecom providers that participated in the NSA program. The House and Senate would have negotiate the differences in the two bills before sending the legislation to U.S. President George Bush to sign. Bush has threatened to veto a surveillance bill that does not include legal immunity for telecom providers, but congressional authorization for the surveillance program expires Feb. 15.It would be counterproductive for Bush to veto a bill that extends surveillance programs that he says are critical, Bankston said. &quot;The only way they can [get legal immunity] is by fallaciously tying it to something critical,&quot; he said.The EFF will push hard to have House negotiators keep the telecom immunity provisions out of the bill that goes to Bush, Bankston added.The EFF and CDT both prefer the House FISA bill, called the Restore Act. Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill would require court approval of surveillance, and the House version would expire in two years, as opposed to six years in the Senate version. The CDT has produced a chart comparing the two bills.
96810
A bill backed by President George W.   Bush to enable a court review of his domestic spying program   won the approval on Wednesday of a U.S. Senate panel under   election-year pressure to safeguard civil liberties.
534901
The Senate votes 68-29 to give amnesty to telephone and internet companies being sued for helping the government spy on Americans without warrants. The bill also largely legalizes future NSA domestic spying. The House must agree before the bill becomes law.
219946
The case of two men convicted of supporting terrorism has become central in the effort to challenge the domestic eavesdropping program.
384236
The FBI once regularly (and surreptitiously) broke into Americans' homes and offices. Now a Senate bill backed by President Bush seems to offer legal immunity to anyone who helps the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, or the NSA do just that.
603232
(InfoWorld) - CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Two of the agencies most actively involved in bringing cyber-criminals to justice in the United States have expressed opposing opinions over pending anti-spyware legislation. Even as a trio of spyware bills is moving forward on Capitol Hill, officials from the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said their two organizations have differing views on the need for passage of the proposed laws. At a forum sponsored by the Anti-Spyware Coalition and held here at Harvard Law School on June 27, officials from the FTC and CDT -- a Washington-based nonprofit that has become a prominent Internet policy watchdog -- detailed areas where their organizations diverge regarding Congressional anti-spyware bills. The Anti-Spyware Coalition -- a security consortium backed by industry players including AOL, Dell, Google, McAfee, Microsoft, and Yahoo -- hosted the panel that brought legal experts from the two organizations together to air their differences. The discussion was hosted by John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law, a well-known expert in the field of Internet security and privacy issues The three pieces of legislation being debated were the Internet Spyware Prevention Act of 2007 (I-SPY Act) and Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT) -- both of which passed vote in the U.S. House of Representatives in May and remain up for debate in the Senate -- and the Counter Spy Act of 2007, introduced before the Senate in mid-June. While both the FTC and CDT are actively involved in attempts to bring suspected purveyors of spyware to court and stop them from distributing illegal code to end-users, the agencies appear to be divided over whether the new laws will result in more prosecutions. The CDT supports passage of all three proposed bills, claiming that any additional laws that increase civil and criminal penalties against spyware brokers and better define illegal practices will prove helpful in bringing new cases -- despite the group's recognition of flaws in all three bills. For its part, the FTC contends that the new laws may only serve to muddle its ability to go after cyber-criminals when it finds them. In outlining each of the bills for the assembled audience, CDT Deputy Director Ari Schwartz highlighted the group's hopes for each of the measures. The I-SPY Act is the least controversial of the three bills in that it merely seeks to extend penalties established in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- originally passed in 1986 -- and make the legal punishments for criminal hacking more severe. The CDT is fully behind the bill and it passed through House hearings with almost no opposition, proving its overall appeal, Schwartz said. The SPY ACT -- originally written by California Republican Rep. Mary Bono and passed by the House in previous sessions -- has proven more divisive; some businesses are expressing serious concerns about the proposal's limitations on consumer information gathering and the fact that the bill would supersede existing state anti-spyware laws. Even though the CDT is against the idea of undercutting existing state laws, the group still supports the measure as it raises penalties on some criminal cyber-crimes and directly addresses troublesome spyware affiliate distribution issues, said Schwartz. The Counter Spy Act was only recently re-introduced by Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor. Previous backers of the bill were voted out of Congress last year, making chances slim that the legislation will move forward quickly. However, the CDT favors the bill's effort to more clearly define the parameters of illegal adware programs, said Schwartz. Issues over the weighting of state and federal anti-spyware measures shouldn't stand in the way of the proposed bills, whose benefits outweigh their loopholes and could help lead to more cases against cyber-criminals, the CDT leader contends. He cited the relatively light punishment handed out in cases brought against proven spyware brokers such as DirectRevenue and Zango as proof that existing laws are insufficient. "Raising penalties is useful, DirectRevenue should have been fined more than $5 million, Zango should have been fined more than $3 million, and they would have been if we had more direct penalties," Schwartz said. "Most people are supportive of these bills, CDT would be happy with raising penalties without pre-empting the states, but most companies looking at these bills are pushing for pre-emption." On the flip side, the FTC feels that existing laws provide it with sufficient power to go after spyware providers, even though the agency has only filed a dozen such suits in recent years. Tracy Shapiro, an attorney for the FTC's Advertising Practices Division, said the federal watchdog would like to see legislation that increases civil penalties against cyber-criminals, but it feels that the new bills could eventually get in its way in bringing accused spyware companies to trial. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act remains broad enough to provide for continued prosecution of the most significant offenders, including spyware providers, she said. "In general there doesn't need to be a law specifically outlining spyware. There's a danger in saying 'no keystroke logging' because that's too specific and someone might look at the law and say another practice is OK," said Shapiro. "Sometimes it's hard to craft legislation to address specific types of technologies; it seems like a good argument against new laws if we can get judgments already." In addition to the potential to create loopholes by limiting their scope to existing threats, the specific nature of the bills could make them hard to apply to similar threats carried out in the future on mobile devices, as opposed to today's PC-based spyware schemes, she said. On the flip side, Schwartz said the CDT has been surprised and disappointed that the FTC hasn't brought any lawsuits based on the SafeWeb Act, passed by Congress in 2006 and aimed at helping the agency fight spam, spyware, and online fraud. The expert said it was particularly puzzling that the FTC hasn't taken advantage of elements of the SafeWab law aimed at aiding in the pursuit of cyber-criminals operating in other countries -- widely recognized as one of the biggest challenges in fighting malware and online fraud. "We've seen very little action under the SafeWeb Act; there have been some joint spyware cases with Canada where U.S.-based adware companies were working within Canada, which seemed like the perfect opportunities to use it," said Schwartz. "We thought [SafeWeb] was worth passing, and we want to see some action on it soon." Shapiro admitted that she didn't know of any cases brought by the FTC that have sought to apply the SafeWeb laws. In the area of international cyber-law enforcement, she said it remains a challenge to share information with some foreign governments. Other Anti-Spyware Coalition contributors remarked that they share the FTC's concerns over passing laws that may eventually serve to handcuff enforcers with outdated terms and conditions. "We're pretty much against the laws," said Alex Eckelberry, president of anti-spyware applications vendor Sunbelt Software. "We think they will do more harm than good."
50546
At a hearing next week, a panel plans to ask Homeland Security officials to explain how a move to expand use of powerful surveillance tools will jibe with Americans' privacy rights.
635980
The federal government is urging an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, warning that disclosure of such activities could compromise national security.
533835
The Bush administration appealed a court decision Monday that allowed a lawsuit to go forward challenging the president's warrantless domestic spying program.
521045
A federal judge Thursday refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's domestic spying program, rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terror.
342840
The FBI wants to compile a massive computer database and analyze it for clues to unmask terrorist sleeper cells. Two congressmen are worried about whether the bureau will protect the privacy of U.S. citizens.