Call for Reader Help: Where Does Your Senator Stand on Spying Immunity?
689861
As the Senate contemplates whether to grant immunity to companies that helped the government with its secret eavesdropping programs, Wired is asking readers to call key senators to see where they stand on spying immunity.
603413
(InfoWorld) - An antispyware bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives this week faces opposition from several groups with one side saying it's too strong and the other saying it's too weak. The Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT), which passed the House Wednesday by a vote of 368 to 48, would prohibit taking control of computers to send unsolicited material to others, diverting the Web browser, modifying a computer's settings and keystroke logging. The bill would make it illegal to collect personal information without permission and it allows fines of up to $3 million for some violations. But several business groups, led by the DMA (Direct Marketing Association), sent a letter to House leaders this week raising objections that the bill too broadly defines "computer software" and "information collection programs," and it could make it illegal for e-commerce sites to recommend products based on browsing or buying history, engage in targeted advertising, or to place cookies on a Web site user's computer "The scope and impact of [the bill] on legitimate businesses goes far beyond regulating spyware and cuts to the heart of the information economy," said the letter, signed by 31 trade groups and companies. The bill could "limit the seamless Internet experience that is responsible for the widespread adoption of the Internet by consumers," the letter said. Representatives of the SPY ACT's two main sponsors, Representative Ed Towns, a New York Democrat, and Representative Mary Bono, a California Republican, weren't immediately available for comment. The SPY ACT is the second piece of antispyware legislation passed by the House this year. The Internet Spyware Prevention Act (I-SPY),Â which passed the House in May, hasn't prompted major objections. I-SPY would create penalties of up to five years in prison for some spyware-like behavior. Versions of both bills passed the House in May 2005, but failed to make it through the Senate. By requiring Web sites to get permission every time they track a users' history, the SPY ACT could make Web surfing an unwieldy series of pop-ups asking for permission, said Steve Berry, the DMA's executive vice president for government affairs. By trying to define bad uses of technology, the bill becomes overly broad, he said. "Our thought is maybe you should look at the intent rather than trying to regulate the technology," Berry said. Among the groups signing the letter in opposition to the SPY ACT were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Information Technology Association of America, NetCoalition, Charles Schwab & Co, and the Internet Alliance. Meanwhile, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has raised different objections to the SPY ACT. The bill would preempt about 10 state laws that have been passed, many of them stronger than the SPY ACT, said Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property lawyer for the EFF. In addition, the bill would take away the ability of private citizens to sue spyware creators, von Lohmann said. The bill "would actually make things worse, insulating adware vendors from more stringent state laws and private lawsuits," von Lohmann wrote on the EFF blog in April. The bill concentrates spyware enforcement in the hands of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and state attorney generals, instead of allowing private lawsuits as well, he said. "This is a terrible move," von Lohmann wrote. "If Congress is serious about enacting tough anti-spyware laws, it should create incentives that would encourage private citizens to pursue the bad guys." Bono, one of the bill's sponsors, said in a statement this week that the preemption of state laws is the right approach. "Because of the Internet's role in interstate commerce, the need for federal spyware legislation is clear, depending on a patchwork of state laws is simply unworkable," she said. "The passage of the SPY ACT moves the American people one step closer to reclaiming control of their computers in their home and at their business."
737151
(InfoWorld) - U.S. legislators signalled Thursday that they will hold Hewlett-Packard's feet to the fire during House testimony on the company'sÂ pretexting scandal, while former General Counsel Ann Baskins formally declined to answer any questions by invoking her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. BaskinsÂ resigned her positionÂ Thursday, effective immediately. Subsequent witnesses including outside investigator Ronald DeLia, of the investigation firm Security Outsourcing Solutions, were also refusing to testify at press time based on their Fifth Amendment rights. HP's use of detectives whoÂ obtained people's telephone recordsÂ under false pretenses while investigating press leaks from its board will be in the spotlight. The matter caught the attention of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, some of whose members have been activelyÂ promoting legislationÂ that would explicitly criminalize tactics such as those used in the HP investigation. The actions taken by HP were "not the act of one rogue employee," said Representative Jay Inslee of Washington state, indicating that at least some of the politicians might not accept the characterization of the events at HP that its chief is set to offer before the subcommittee. In a written version of his testimony made available earlier, President and Chief Executive Officer Mark Hurd called the scandal the result of aÂ "rogue investigation." Inslee and Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee have co-authored legislation that would prohibit the obtaining of customer information from telecommunications carriers by false pretenses, and the sale or disclosure of such records obtained by false pretenses. In her opening remarks Blackburn, a Republican, called pretexting a purposeful effort to deceive and defraud in order to get information one is not entitled to have. "How prevalent is it in the corporate boardroom?" she asked. Criminalization of pretexting needs to extend to all forms of telecommunications, said Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, adding that legislation must address records ranging from conventional telecom through mobile and Internet telephony. She called for a "comprehensive legislative approach" to cover all sectors where pretexting could occur.
314526
The FBI&#39;s investigation into Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, on charges of spying for Israel, has left many of us scratching our heads and wondering, &quot;Why?
212819
A U.S. Senate committee approved a  bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on  terrorism suspects, but a Democratic presidential candidate  said on Thursday he would try to block it.
312456
Not Dunn arguing Patricia Dunn, the recently ex-chairman of HP, is to appear before a Congressional committee later today to defend her actions in spying on board members and journalists.â¦
527751
The Senate Judiciary Committee today endorsed a bill backed by the White House to have a secret court review the constitutionality of the eavesdropping program.
45982
The Senate Intelligence Committee approved a measure that would  grant immunity to telecom companies for their role in assisting government surveillance programs.
580827
By Fred Reed, The Washington Times  May 26--E-SPYING MAY BE LEGAL, BUT MORAL? Law lags technology. Moral  questions take a back seat. Just because you can do something doesn't mean  that it's a good idea. These are three laws of advancing technology.
160801
The FBI once regularly (and surreptitiously) broke into Americans' homes, offices. Now a Senate bill seems to offer immunity to anyone who helps the government do just that.
445639
Mr. Dodd goes to Washington, and wins. The Connecticut senator and Democratic presidential candidate threatens to filibuster a bill giving immunity to telecoms that helped the government spy on Americans, prompting it to be dropped until next year.
164389
Democrats control both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Public opposition to warrantless wiretapping is growing, and recent disclosures suggest it started even before 9/11. So why can't the Democrats curb the Bush administration's wiretapping?
143347
WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday approved new rules for government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, giving the White House much of the latitude it wanted and granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped in the snooping after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
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.
284708
The Senate on Tuesday approved new rules for government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, giving the White House much of the latitude it wanted and granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies
30570
(InfoWorld) - An antispyware bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed this week earned praise from cybersecurity groups, but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. The bill, which would create penalties of up to five years in prison for some spyware-like behavior, is a "needed piece of legislation in order to protect consumers," said Kevin Richards, federal government relations manager for Symantec Corp. Many online identity theft schemes start with spyware on a victim's computer, he said. Though versions of the Internet Spyware Prevention Act (I-SPY) have passed through the House in the last two sessions of Congress, they stalled in the Senate. The House passed I-SPY and a second spyware bill in May 2005. But the Senate failed to act, partly because of concerns that the second proposal, called the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act or SPY Act, too broadly defined spyware. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee also became hung up on what approach to take for a spyware bill -- a criminal penalties approach similar to I-SPY or a broader approach attempting to define spyware technologies similar to the second House bill. Concerns over the SPY Act remain. Last month, theÂ Electronic Frontier Foundation issued an alert about the SPY Act, saying it opposes the bill because it would preempt tougher state laws against spyware and hacking. "In fact, having been massaged by lobbyists for the software and adware industries, the bill would actually make things worse, insulating adware vendors from more stringent state laws and private lawsuits," wrote EFF lawyer Fred von Lohmann. Any bills that have not passed through the House and Senate during their two-year session must be reintroduced. This year the SPY Act has been approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee but has not faced a vote on the House floor. On the other hand,Â there seems to be less opposition to I-SPY. I-SPY has "broad support from the industry," said Geoff Gray, legislative consultant for the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a trade group. "It concentrates on bad actions as opposed to bad technologies." I-SPY now goes to the Senate for consideration. Two champions of antispyware legislation in the Senate, Republicans George Allen of Virginia and Conrad Burns of Montana, were defeated in last November's elections. Meanwhile, supporters of the I-SPY Act say they will push for passage in the Senate. Symantec is engaging senators about the need for a spyware bill and other cybersecurity measures, Richards said. Several senators seem open to cybersecurity legislation, he said. "I think there's interest there," he said. "But senators are focused on a big plate of issues." Although Burns and Allen are gone, I-SPY has a "decent" chance of passing the Senate, added Gray. The House may have given it a better shot by not passing the more controversial SPY Act at the same time, he said. "A little steam has gone out of it on the Senate side, but maybe some of the conflict as well," Gray said. A spokesman for Representative Zoe Lofgren, one of the primary sponsors of I-SPY, said it's early to gauge the bill's chances in the Senate. The California Democrat will begin pushing for the bill in the Senate soon, the spokesman said. Representatives of tech-focused senators said their bosses are looking at antispyware legislation. "It's one of our priorities," said a spokesman for Senator John Ensign, a Nevada Republican and cosponsor of an antispyware bill in the last session of Congress. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, is also looking into the issue, a spokeswoman said. Wyden, cosponsor of the broader antispyware bill in the Senate last Congress, is "looking into what he feels the correct course should be legislatively ... based on the way the spyware issue has evolved over the last two years," said spokeswoman Melissa Merz.
340162
Federal and industry experts grapple with how to apply CALEA wiretap standards to something that lawmakers didn't anticipate 10 years ago -- voice over IP. Michael Grebb reports from Washington.