FITUG e.V.
Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft
FITUG e.V.Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft |
|
------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:36:35 -0500 To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: SEC is creating Net-surveillance system, and a response Send reply to: declan@well.com
SEC's Plan to Snoop for Crime on Web Sparks a Debate Over Privacy 28 Mar 2000 By Michael Moss Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
The Securities and Exchange Commission is moving to create an automated surveillance system that would scour the Internet for people who violate securities law. The agency has begun receiving proposals from vendors, who have conducted trial runs in recent weeks.
But even before it gets under way, the multimillion-dollar project is running into trouble on privacy grounds.
The mechanism would monitor public Web sites, message boards and chat groups. Anything deemed suspicious -- like the phrase "get rich quick" -- would be copied into a database, analyzed and then indexed for use by SEC investigators in bringing civil proceedings against people suspected of wrongdoing, according to the project-contractor solicitation.
The SEC also wants to grab e-mail addresses and other identifying information that would help unmask message writers and Web-site owners who try to remain anonymous.
Other federal agencies might develop their own automated surveillance, the contracting records indicate. "For us it's a very exciting prospect," says Phyllis J. Cela, acting director of enforcement at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has begun talking to vendors.
But after reviewing the documents and holding discussions with SEC officials, one invited bidder, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, advised the agency that it would not participate because the endeavor might impinge on constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. Its chief concern: Innocent people would end up in the database. "We had serious concerns about the implications for the privacy of individuals on the Web, and the implications for businesses on the Web," says Beth Trent, a director who leads the firm's Internet compliance unit.
[...]
In compiling Internet messages, the SEC says, "Contractor shall include the following minimum information pertaining to each indexed message: the date of posting; title line; the groups to which posted; nature of discussions; and the disclosed affiliation, user name and e-mail addresses of individuals posting information." The contractor also has to make the database accessible online to as many as 50 SEC staffers at one time, and take steps to prevent unauthorized access.
[...]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:23:02 -0500 From: "Alexander, Brad" <Brad.Alexander@mail.house.gov> Subject: SEC Online Surveillance ^A The letter below responds to reports by the Wall Street Journal today describing an SEC online monitoring plan that would sift the Internet for key words, and save content containing them for enforcement action.
-- Brad Alexander Communications Director, Rep. Barr 202-225-2931
March 28, 2000
Mr. Arthur Levitt, Jr.
Chairman
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th St NW
Washington, D.C. 20001-2739
IN RE: Online Fraud Monitoring
Dear Chairman Levitt:
As a Member of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, I write to express my concern with reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plans to implement an automated system for monitoring Internet speech on a massive scale. In light of the serious constitutional, legal and policy questions raised by such a system, I urge you to reconsider this plan.
To use an analogy based on current practices, the fact that telephones may be used to commit fraud does not entitle the FCC, the FBI, or the SEC to engage in wholesale monitoring of all telephone conversations. Instead, you are required to go before a court, meet constitutional and statutory requirements for a warrant, and listen only to specific conversations pursuant to the court's order. This system may seem inconvenient to you at times, but it has done a remarkably good job of protecting the privacy of American citizens without unduly hampering law enforcement. It is difficult to argue we should discard it, and adopt a new system of widespread monitoring, simply because new technologies make such monitoring possible.
The system you are reportedly contemplating would turn current practices upside down by monitoring large portions of online speech without a court order, and sifting through that speech for items of interest to your or some other federal agency. Engaging in such a wide level of monitoring will have a chilling effect on free speech online. Furthermore, it seems likely experienced criminals can easily avoid such well-publicized and widespread monitoring, by simply encrypting their data or conducting business from offshore havens.
While I understand the need to prevent securities fraud, federal agents should not be allowed to sift through the conversations of millions of innocent parties in order to do so. I urge you to reconsider this plan and adopt a system that is narrower in scope, and complies fully with constitutional guarantees, as well as existing statutory protections.
With kind regards, I am,
very truly yours,
Bob Barr Member of Congress
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ------- End of forwarded message -------