The USA Patriot Act
Aaron Nishina
Jon Gerard
Ricky Sood
The USA Patriot Act
Formal definition: the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Tools Required To
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USAPA)
History Behind The Computing
Policies of the USAPA
Attorney General John Ashcroft
His views on cyber-crime in the United
States pre-9/11
May 22, 2001
The Speech
Terrorism In the U.S.
Domestic vs. International
terrorism
The need to fight terrorism
Relation to computing
The government’s solution
What is the Patriot Act?
Anti-terrorism legislative document
Addresses cyber crimes issues
Fundamental privacy vs. security issues
Creates new laws / Appends Old Laws
Some of the Major Provisions
Court subpoena no longer needed for ISP’s to give
information
Computer crimes are now “terrorist” offenses
ISP’s have to give up more user information
Court orders no longer needed for monitoring
suspects in computer crimes cases
Appends the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Major changes at Libraries in the U.S.
Development of electronic crime task force within
the U.S. Secret Service
Implementation of the Carnivore Tracking Device
Who Are the Stakeholders?
Computer users in the public
Internet Service Providers
Libraries
Law Enforcement
Terrorists
Advocates vs. Opponents
THE PATRIOT ACT
SUPPORTERS OPPONENTS
Law Enforcement Libertarians
Government Privacy Advocates
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Political Conservatives
Ethical and Legal Questions
about the USAPA
The USAPA affects policies regarding
wiretapping and warrants
As is common with such cases, it is asked
“Do these new changes violate
Constitutional (Legal) Rights?”
Many people have strong reservations about
the need for privacy. “Do these new policies
violate the right to privacy?”
Ethical and Legal Questions
Debate has arisen over usefulness vs.
legitimacy
No cases has challenged the computer
provisions in the USAPA yet
Biggest concerns: email and information
handling
Fourth and Ninth Amendments in Question
The Right to Privacy
Not expressly given in the Constitution
Fourth Amendment is a compelling
argument for privacy because it guarantees
the right to be secure in one’s own person,
house, and papers
Fifth Amendment protects people from
divulging certain information
Ninth Amendment grants rights not
expressly given in the Constitution
The Right to Search only with
Probable Cause
Email interception has been treated in the
USAPA as similar to wiretapping
Fourth Amendment requires probable cause
for the issue of a warrant
In Katz vs. U.S. 1967, the Supreme Court
stated that the Fourth Amendment protects
people, not places. What a person seeks to
keep private is constitutionally protected
(phone conversations included)
To reiterate:
Who are the major sides in the argument for
and against the Patriot Act?
U.S. Government offices such as the
Whitehouse, CIA, FBI, and Dept. of Justice
are in favor.
Civil Liberties Groups such as the ACLU,
and Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF)are against it.
Analysis of the USAPA by
President Bush
“Surveillance of communications is an
essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists.
The existing laws were written in the era of
rotary telephones. This bill met with an
overwhelming support in Congress because
it upholds and respects civil liberties.
Analysis of the USAPA by the
EFF
“It seems clear that the vast majority of
sections included have not been carefully
studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time
taken to debate it or hear testimony from
experts. The civil liberties of ordinary
Americans have taken a tremendous blow”
Analysis of the USAPA by the
Congressional Research Service
“Critics of the USAPA have suggested that it
may have gone too far. The Act itself
responds to some of these reservations.
Many of the wiretapping amendments
sunset on December 2005. The Fourth
Amendment protects private conversations,
but it does not cloak even highly personal
information [such as ISP records].”
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
How would the USAPA have affected the
events leading up to 9/11?
In specific, we look at computer-related
provisions in the USAPA
We chose to study the only case involving
someone on trial for the 9/11 attacks:
Zacarias Moussaoui
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- Who was he?
A 33 year old French-born Moroccan with a
history of Muslim radicalism
Entered the U.S. February 2001 and
immediately began learning how to fly
Studied at the Pan Am Flying Academy in
Eagan, Minnesota
He paid for his lessons with about $8000 in
cash
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- Who was he?
Instructors became suspicious because it
seemed that Moussaoui was most concerned
with steering aircraft, and not landing or
taking off
FBI detained Moussaoui on August 17 and
he is now charged with 6 criminal counts
concerning 9/11.
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
At the time of his arrest, the FBI found
flight manuals for a Boeing 747, 2 knives,
fighting shields and a laptop computer
The FBI was also notified by French
Intelligence that Moussaoui was suspected
of involvement with Islamic extremists
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- FBI Requests a warrant
The FBI requested a warrant under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) to search his computer
Denied due to insufficient evidence that
Moussaoui was involved with terrorists.
It turns out that information regarding the
spraying of pesticides from planes was
among the content on his computer.
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- The Relationship to the USAPA
How does this case relate to the Patriot Act?
The requested for a warrant was under
provisions by the FISA. These provisions
have been updated with the USAPA
There are additional provisions in the
USAPA alone that could have allowed a
warrant to be issued
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- Details We are Interested In.
Moussaoui was a
suspected terrorist by
French Intelligence
He was suspected by
the FBI in Minnesota
to be a terrorist
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- The act of getting a warrant
FISA is changed by USAPA to state that
terrorism only needs to be a “significant
purpose for an investigation” ; this is less than
“probable cause”
Other USAPA provisions could also have been
used to obtain a warrant
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- What can the FBI do with that
warrant?
Under Section 219, a FISA warrant now
entitles investigators the ability “to coordinate
efforts to investigate potential hostile attacks”
Would have allowed for the searching of his
computer
This is how computers are very much a part of
this case!
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- What was on his computer?
Pesticide and Crop Dusting Information
In retrospect, relevant because of Anthrax
Attacks
What is important is the potential information!
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
- What was on his computer?
Ethical: Overall good to American people is
obvious
Unethical action of invading Moussaoui’s
privacy relatively minor?
What is important is the potential information
Case Study: Zacarias Moussaoui
Benefits of USAPA seem clear
Disadvantages seem to be minor
We need to examine other cases regarding the
USAPA
Case Study 2: Internet Service
Providers
Part of Corporate America
How does the USA Patriot Act affect them?
(Sec. 212)
Law Enforcement’s POV
Civil Libertarian’s POV
Pro’s & Con’s
Ethical Questions
ISPs: Part of Corporate America
They do not generally engage in criminal or
terrorist activity
There are large and small ISPs alike and the
effects on both must be taken into account.
The financial impacts on both must be taken
into account
How does the USA Patriot Act
affect ISPs?
Allows ISPs to “voluntarily” disclose
electronic communications
In the event immediate danger or death or
serious bodily injury to a person requires
such disclosure.
Law Enforcement’s POV
Previous Law was inadequate
No provisions allowing providers to
disclose customer records or
communications in emergencies
Did not expressly permit a provider to
voluntarily disclose “non-content” records
to law enforcement for purposes of self
protection
Providers could disclose the content of
communications for this reason
What Does “Non-Content” Mean
It includes records of session times and
durations, temporarily assigned network
(IP) addresses; means in sources of
payments, including credit card or bank
account numbers
Civil Libertarians POV
It allows ISPs to voluntarily handover all
"non-content" information to law
enforcement with no need for a court order
or subpoena
It expands the records that the government
may seek with a simple subpoena (no court
review required)
i.e. “non-content” Information
Pro’s
ISPs may now authorize law enforcement to
intercept a computer trespasser’s wire or
electronic communications
No need for law enforcement to first obtain
a court order before performing these
surveillance activities
Computer system operators can now obtain
assistance from law enforcement when they
are attacked by trespassing “hackers”
The DOJ analogizes this new power to a
homeowner calling the police
Con’s
CSPs may now voluntarily disclose
information about users to law enforcement
May now voluntarily disclose to the
government user communications or
customer records
Financial burden on ISP / Additional Man
power is uncertain
Ethical Questions
Is it ethical to allow ISPs to make the
determination of whether or not there is an
emergency involving immediate danger of
death or serious physical injury to any
person ?
Ethical Questions Continued
Is it ethical to impose any additional
technical obligation or requirement on a ISP
which may impact it financially?
Ethical Questions Continued
The USA Patriot Act allows for ISPs to
“voluntarily” disclose information to law
enforcement, how will the public view the
ISP who “might” have had information
which could have prevented a terrorist act?
The FBI has recently come under fire for
this exact situation
Case Study 3: The General
Computing Public
A Broader Overview
Internet Users
Students
Software Piracy
Internet Users
Most businesses and home computer users
as well, require an internet connection
We are the minority of the Computing
Public
Most of the general computing is weary of
the security of the internet
Anything that affects an ISPs ability to
function also impacts the general computing
public
Pro’s
The easy answer…!
Most will not notice any difference
ISPs able to provide better service to their
customers
Con’s
The easy answer…!
More innocent victims
ISPs unable to provide adequate service to
their customers
Ethical Questions
Is it ethical that the USAPA makes law
enforcements job of apprehending criminals
easier at the cost of affecting a greater
number of innocents?
Ethical Questions Continued
Is it ethical that the USAPA puts some of
the burden of this monitoring on ISPs?
If one ISPs PR is damaged due to this…
Could lead to a cascading effect among the
privacy policy of ISPs affecting many
internet users.
Students
A large population of the general computing
public are students
Academic and personal records at can be
accessed by law enforcement
This can be viewed in from two
perspectives
Pro’s
Some of the hijacking terrorists were here
on student visas
Other immigrants illegally gain entrance to
the US under the guise of being students
If the FBI might be able to track those
terrorists through their student records
The president acknowledges this fact
Pro’s Continued
Statements made by the President regarding
student visas
"We're going to start asking a lot of questions
that heretofore have not been asked"
"We're generous with our universities. We're
generous with our job opportunities and never
did we realize that people would take advantage
of our generosity to the extent they have”
Con’s
It is easier for law enforcement to gain
access to student records
There are already exceptions to FERPA
(Buckley Act) for law enforcement to
access these records
More students will be looked upon with
suspicion especially those with student visas
Con’s Continued
ACLU’s statements regarding student records
“allows law enforcement agencies to get access
to private student information based on a mere
certification that the records are relevant to an
investigation”
“The bill omits good cause requirements and
meaningful judicial review to protect against
fishing expeditions that violate student privacy
or investigation based upon racial profiling”
Ethical Questions
Is it ethical to create new laws which impact
the rights of others simply to make law
enforcements job easier?
Especially if there are already avenues for
law enforcement to take.
Ethical Questions Continued
Law enforcement must inform you for
searches involving a search warrant, even if
that notification is delayed.
Is it ethical to not inform students that their
academic records have been accessed by
law enforcement under court
order/subpoena?
Software Piracy
Affects : A large population of the general
computing public
New ease in MP3 and MPEG sharing
technology
Availability of cracked software increases
Software Piracy
Tools such as Carnivore make monitoring
of internet users possible
Certain keywords, ISP information release,
even possible acquaintance with a criminal
may lead to tracking
Software Piracy
Stakeholder: An average College Student
May or may not be aware of legal issues
involved
Working on a report and Sharing MP3’s…
could it lead to an arrest?
Are we biased in this case?
How likely is this case?
Argument in Favor of Arrest
Unimportant if computer user is a terrorist
Attorney General states “It is a
misconception that computer crime is not as
serious as traditional crime”
Pirating Software hurts software
companies/employees
RIAA states that pirating music hurts
recording artists
Argument in Favor of Arrest,
Continued
Law enforcement officials should use every
means necessary to catch crimes
Thus, using the USAPA is justifiable
The USAPA allows laws to be “up to date”
with current technology
Overwhelming support in Congress seems
to support that they deemed this legislation
necessary
Argument Against Arrest
USAPA designed to “provide appropriate
tools required to intercept and obstruct
terrorism”
USAPA is misleading and has a scope that
extends beyond the traditional meaning of
terrorism - and that is wrong
What is Terrorism…?
Definition of Terrorism
FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use
of force or violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a
government or civilian population”
This seems reasonable.. But...
Definition of Terrorism
USAPA defines terrorism differently.
Expands notion of “domestic terrorism”
Amends Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by
stating that computer crimes are “terrorist
offenses”
Legal or not, is it ethical for an Anti-
Terrorism bill to do this?
Final Thoughts
privacy vs safety
Patriot Act is definitely going to change
our lives
It isn't clear just how yet
our goal in discussing the USAPA