This amateur scientist community is thriving, and their blogs and experiences can be found on websites such as DIYbio.com, (which stands for do-it-yourself biology) an organization that helps amateurs and hobbyists share information regarding their bio-hacking pursuits.   However, there is a great deal of concern regarding this new brand of scientific experimentation.  An organism that is modified, even in a benign way, could severely disrupt the ecosystem if released into the environment.  At the moment, the oversight for this group of scientists is done through self-policing.  Many experts are concerned with the potential abuse of bio-engineering and the development of dangerous new pathogens and viruses.  Proponents of biohacking respond to security concerns by pointing out that hazardous DNA sequences are already public, whether it be Ebola, H5N1, and even the 1918 plague.

Organizations such as DIYbio argue that widespread, collaborative biohacking increases security by exposing lab work in a transparent public setting.  Furthermore, proponents of bio-hacking argue that their activities are aimed at making science more transparent, affordable, and beneficial for greater number of people. Regardless of these benefits, this type of amateur biology has security officials in the US very worried.  It will be interesting to see what steps the government will take, if any, to regulate these activities in the future.

Despite vocal concerns from telecommunications companies and civil liberties groups, the bill’s sponsors maintain that the bill is necessary  to protect the nation’s cyber infrastructure security. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said. Agreed. Sort of. “At all costs?” That might be  a bridge too far. Cybersecurity should be a top government priority, given our national infrastructure’s dependence on the Internet, but at what cost?

President Obama has acknowledged that the United States is “not as prepared as we should be,” when it comes to cybersecurity, and in May said that “[the government's] pursuit of cybersecurity will not — I repeat, will not include — monitoring private networks or Internet traffic.”

As with campaign promises, that may have been wishful thinking on the president’s part. The bill’s text takes a markedly different tack, calling for the White House to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks to determine which of those networks are “critical” to national security. Those companies that maintain critical private networks are then required to share certain requested information with the government, but the Rockefeller-Snowe bill, in its current form, lacks the necessary internal checks on the vast power it grants the president over private networks and fails to spell out exactly what limitations would be placed on the government in the monitoring process. Before the telecommunications industry (not to mention the general public) can rest easily, the amorphous powers granted in the bill will need to be reigned in to curb opportunities for abuse of those powers.

Not everyone is concerned about the bill’s prospective reach, however. According to McCullagh, a Senate source familiar with the legislation likens the president’s authority to shut down the internet to President Bush’s grounding of all aircraft immediately proceeding the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The obvious difference between the two examples is that the government is not required to access vast quantities of sensitive personal information in order to ground airplanes. Shutting down critical networks in the event of a cyber emergency means knowing exactly which private networks are “critical,” which by necessity means some level of monitoring. Without an appropriate process for administrative review and healthy checks on the extent of the government’s monitoring power, the bill will have a hard time garnering the necessary support to get passed.

]]> http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/08/31/bill-would-give-president-emergency-control-over-internet/feed/ 0 http://www.mttlrblog.org/2008/02/13/i-always-feel-like-somebodys-tracking-me/ http://www.mttlrblog.org/2008/02/13/i-always-feel-like-somebodys-tracking-me/#comments Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:26:00 +0000 admin http://www.mttlrblog.org/?p=27 by: Ronald Spinner, Associate Editor, MTTLR

Image “Ear” by Jeremy Richardson.
Used under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

Introduction

“I always feel like somebody’s watching me / And I have no privacy…”¹

When Rockwell wrote those lyrics back in 1984, many took it as a humorous account of a guy in serious need of therapy. The singer is worried about being spied upon by his neighbors, the mailman, and the Internal Revenue Service.² The somewhat offbeat video for the song hints that Rockwell actually may not be that unusual. The VH1 clip is filled with little pop up “facts,” and in one such, the video claims that 74% of Americans “believe our government engages in clandestine operations.”³

While I hardly recommend relying on music videos for hard sociological data, maybe there is reason to be a little bit paranoid. For examples, just watch the news. In the past few days, we’ve heard that the administration has been pushing Congress to give it permanent permission for warrantless wiretaps.⁴ Congress has been hesitant, but recently agreed to a 15 day extension of the law while they sort things out.⁵ The request seems simple—the administration wants authority to do what Americans want it to do: keep us safe. But…can we trust government with this kind of power? I keep thinking of the phrase: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”⁶ And, while I’d like to believe everything will work out as it should, I’d also like to think I’m not that naïve anymore. (It may have something to do with going to law school.)

I did some digging and was not terribly surprised to learn that there seems to be a lot of tracking going on. One type of tracking did raise my eyebrows a bit, though. Apparently, the government routinely seeks court permission to track citizen cell phones without demonstrating probable cause.⁷ OK, this was news to me. Sure, I know the government can engage in surveillance and I had suspected that cell phones were not off limits, but I had thought the Constitution put limits on such activities.⁸ At the very least, it seems there would need to be a statute or such granting the government authority. It turns out, there is. In a touch of Orwellian irony, the law allowing such surveillance is named the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.⁹ (Had it passed two years earlier, the comparisons to Big Brother would be unavoidable.¹⁰) The devices used to enable cell phone tracking are referred to as “pen registers”.¹¹ Pen registers can record what numbers are dialed and where calls are routed. In the case of cell phones, they sometimes can yield the location of the phone itself, though exactly how close they can pinpoint the location varies depending on whether the phone has a GPS chip and on the number of cell towers nearby that can be used to triangulate the call.¹²

Ah, but in my pre-law-school days, I had assumed that one would need a warrant to do all this.¹³ (OK, before law school I didn’t know why you needed a warrant, but I had watched enough TV to guess it was necessary.) My research bolstered this; I learned that the Constitution is backed up by statutory protections. For example, even if the government has probable cause, if it can only convince a court to issue a warrant for a pen register and nothing more, the pen register may not be used to learn the physical location of the phone.¹⁴ It would seem I was just being paranoid after all. (Maybe Rockwell needs a backup singer?)

If this is all true, though, how does that square with the government’s attempts to track citizen movements without the probable cause needed for a warrant?¹⁵ That doesn’t seem to fit with the statutes or the Constitution. Now I was curious. Partly out of my privacy concerns, but also out of a sense of intellectual interest, I asked: how could this be so?

“Why do I always feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone?”¹⁶
The government has made arguments to get around the “probable cause” requirement, and sometimes they are successful in court.¹⁷ As I understand it, one such line of reasoning, the “hybrid” argument, uses the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to get around the restrictions.¹⁸ Under the SCA, the government may get a court order to access stored records if it provides “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds” that the information sought is “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”¹⁹ This is a lower standard than “probable cause.” In simplified form, the argument seems to flow as follows:²⁰

• The statutory protection discussed earlier only comes into play when a cell phone location is sought “solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices” (emphasis mine).
• If the government seeks stored record access and real-time tracking data, the statutory protection does not apply, since the government is not solely seeking authority for a pen register. Thus, the pen register should be allowed to record the physical location of the cell phone tracked.
• Since there will be a stored record, the government can use the SCA to access the record later under the lower “reasonable grounds” standard.
• Since the government can access the record later, why not provide the data in real time?

Of course, this argument does not mention that by the time a stored record is accessed, the suspect in question will be long gone. (Let’s face it: that’s a real difference between intercepting someone on the ground and, well, not doing so.) ²¹ In courts, it appears that the argument’s results have been mixed, with some courts accepting and others rejecting the view.²² Some courts are concerned that this feels like an end-run around protections Congress put in place; others appear less concerned about what Congress may have intended and focus on the pure statutory language alone.²³ After my reading, I side with the former position. It seems to me that Congress said “Don’t record locations without express permission” and “You can only seek stored (not live) records with less than probable cause.” In that view, this “hybrid” interpretation feels like a twist of logic that smacks of Orwell’s doublespeak. Nonetheless, as long as courts agree with it, it remains a viable interpretation of law. Don’t get me wrong; I believe in law enforcement. I just happen to believe in process and the Fourth Amendment, also.

“Tell me, is it just a dream?”²⁴

Rockwell may have been paranoid, but perhaps he had a point. And perhaps this is not the full story, since there are allegations that the executive branch sometimes bypasses the courts altogether.²⁵ For me, once a happy-but-naïve person (in my pre-law days), it seems like an odd turn of events. The original goal of the technology was to save lives.²⁶ (Indeed, just weeks ago, cell phone tracking probably saved the lives of two women in Eastpointe, Michigan.²⁷ That’s an undeniably wonderful use for the technology.) Beyond that, the technology continues to find other useful applications.²⁸ Yet, the technology has a dark side, enabling others to spy on us in spite of would-be legal protections.

So, what do we do? Perhaps nothing; maybe we don’t mind if the government can track us.²⁹ But, perhaps you represent an unpopular cause and believe you have reason to be humming Rockwell’s little ditty quietly to yourself. In that case, if you don’t use your phone to access maps and navigation, perhaps you might want to turn off the GPS broadcast function as some phones allow. (My Motorola has a setting “911 only,” which, in theory, only broadcasts the exact location if I dial 911. I’ve chosen that setting, though I can’t vouch for its effectiveness. Also note, even if the setting stops the phone from broadcasting your location, you can still be tracked, just not quite as easily.) For the more active among us (read “less lazy”), it may worth trying to help the courts by filing amicus briefs. Electing officials who respect Constitutional rights is generally helpful, too. At the very least, it might be worth writing a letter to your elected representatives to ask, “Do we really know what we’re getting into with this surveillance and warrantless wiretapping stuff?”

In the meantime, perhaps Rockwell is right. Maybe we should start wondering, “Who’s playing tricks on me?”³⁰