Readers respond: Privacy vs. security
Where should U.S. law enforcement draw the line between the freedom of privacy and public safety when it comes to monitoring the Web? Remarks by Paul George, supervisory special agent for the Michigan bureau of the FBI, at this week's Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2000 Conference in Toronto, sparked heated debate among readers.
"There are reasons law enforcement should and does have the power to arrest and to search," George, an advocate of Internet tracking as an investigative technique, told attendees. "There are worse things than having your privacy violated ... like murder."
Many Talkback respondents, however, said they were more concerned about government abuse of Internet privacy than they were about the possibility of the Web as a tool in crime.
"It's sad, but we just can't trust these agencies," wrote programmer-analyst Rigo Cisneros. " In a perfect world you could always trust the cops, but the reality is you can't. They are just people and not always 'nice' people. That's why they shouldn't have those powers."
"What about freedom?" asked Texas IT manager Bill Davis. "Is losing our freedom less of an evil than murder? The reason our Founding Fathers included the right to privacy and the right to bear arms in our Constitution was to protect us from tyrannous government.
"The more of our privacy we give up, the closer we come to giving up our freedom. Sure, we need to fight crime but we also need to make sure we aren't enslaving our children's children because we compromise the foundations of what makes this a great country."
"The brotherhood of law enforcement has created a barrier between the people and law enforcement," wrote W. Hayden of Grawn, Mich. "Inside that wall, the law has assumed a self-righteous posture and considers everyone outside the law to have some kind of criminal intent.
"Hence, we have an emotionally unbalanced institution empowered to control normal people. We the people need a much, much stronger leash on the law or we're going to find ourselves begging for approval to be out of our homes."
Other readers, meanwhile, said they agreed with George that the government should have at least some ability to conduct criminal investigations via the Internet.
"How exactly have the FBI violated my Internet rights?" asked "Mike," a Microsoft-certified systems engineer in Chicago. "Right now the FBI cannot use any data gained during a tap on my telephone unless they have a court order. If the order is later found to be unwarranted, all their information is not admissible in a court. Sounds OK to me. Similar safeguards on the Internet would solve the problem.
"However, there are people out there who do not want the FBI to listen in to the Net at all, court order or not. And so criminals plan their depredations via e-mail; the WTO rioters [in Seattle in 1999] used this technique.
"I'm sorry, but murder is a violation of my rights. Give the cops disincentives to tap illegally, as are currently in place regarding interrogations and wiretaps, and keep an eye on them. This will make us safe from Big Brother and Big Crook all at once."
"We choose how much of our privacy is violated," wrote Keith Cramer, a Maryland network manager. "It is a choice to give others that information. Getting a license, a passport [or] an Internet account are all privileges that we take for granted. In order for society to function, there have to be rules and regulations; otherwise, we'll revert to anarchic, pre-Stone Age behavior.
" I know that people can track my Internet behavior if I choose not to make it anonymous. I know that people can take pictures of me when I'm walking down the street. Both the Internet and the street are public places. If, however, people start invading my home or my personal belongings, that's where I get upset."
"Van," a Toronto physicist, concurred - with qualifications. "Just having a drivers license or a passport cost you a measure of privacy. Is it reasonable? Yes.
"Should a government agency collect data on you? No, if you are not a suspect in crime! There should not be a preventative collection of data just in case it may come in handy one day.
"Yes, if it is believed it may help to apprehend criminals in a concrete case, although no direct suspicion rest on you, this is a reasonable procedure as police should have a free hand in determining the scope of data collection. The data extraneous to the case at hand should be flushed when the case is terminated, it should not be part of a growing database."