On Wednesday, the president delivered a straight-talking, impassioned address detailing ambitious plans to improve and reform just about everything. In 378 words he explained how America's energy infrastructure needed to move towards more efficient and greener technologies. With 443 words he discussed the importance of a higher minimum wage and bringing technology-related manufacturing jobs back to the domestic labor market. 606 words explained new plans to improve secondary education with job preparation, STEM-focused curricula, and a new initiative to incentivize tuition reductions in higher education. Among all his new proposals, the mere 133 words on a new legislative push for enhanced "cyber-defenses" was probably the most vague, and the most disturbing. Under legislation like the PATRIOT Act, federal law enforcement wields disturbingly broad authority not only to survey, collect information on, and prosecute Americans, but also to share this information between agencies. Citing a "rapidly growing threat from cyber-attacks", the president hopes to push Congress for new laws to strengthen the national digital defenses, but is this power the federal government actually needs?
What Is And Isn't Legal
Current computer security law is set primarily by Title 18 U.S.C Sections 1029 & 1030 which outline computer crimes and, in part, sentencing for offenses. Section 1030 defines a "protected computer" as any computer used by a financial institution or government agency for the purposes of interstate commerce, foreign commerce, or communication. Any unauthorized access to, collection of, and damage or corruption to data on a protected computer is prohibited and constitutes a felony. Section 1029 deals with so called access devices (AD) and makes it illegal to:
- Produce, use, or sell counterfeit access devices
- Obtain anything of value with a counterfeit AD
- Have more than 15 in your possession
- Own equipment that allows you to produce your own AD
- Alter or modify "telecommunication equipment" to gain unauthorized acess to communication services
- Owning devices that can intercept a wire or other form of electronic communication.
- Using/owning hardware or software that modifies the identity of a telecom. device.
Here, access devices are any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, PIN number, or any other device that can be used to access accounts for anything of value.
In addition to Sections 1029 and 1030, the Cyber Security Enhancement (CSEA) and USA PATRIOT Acts play a role in federal information security law by laying the groundwork for anti-cyberterrorism legislation. The CSEA allows Internet Service Providers to disclose information about subscriber activities to government agencies, without a "reasonable belief" that there is an immediate danger of another's death or serious injury. Title VIII of the PATRIOT Act amends Section 1030 of Title 18 to include the "damage or gain unauthorized access to" language regarding protected computers, and expands punishable offenses to include disrupting medical practices, healthcare, and national security.
Article comments
1 - pablo
You might have mentioned Alexander that all of the legislation that you cited is unconstitutional on its face as per the fourth amendment. I am not surprised however that you omitted that trivial fact.
2 - Alexander J Smith III
The Constitutionality of the legislation wasn't the focus of the piece, though I do agree that much of the PATRIOT Act is in violation of several Constitutional Amendments.
3 - pablo
Well that's great Alexander. I just don't see the point in writing about legislation that is unlawful on its face, other than to point that out.
4 - Igor
IMO the point of discussing unlawful legislation is to try to rescind it. But that may be impossible, given the political proclivities.
Fortunately, an astute person can devise sufficient personal security with easily available tools.
5 - Alexander J Smith III
-Pablo,
Unfortunately for us, those laws are the law, and they won't be unlawful until we (and our court system) step up to challenge them. While they're still around we have to talk about the powers they grant, even if we don't agree that they should be there in the first place.
6 - pablo
Igor and Alexander,
Then the thrust of the discussion should be about their unlawfulness, which I did not see in your article Alexander.
I'm RACIST? for criticizing Obama.
TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.
ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothschild Zionism.
TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.
TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.
TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.
TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.
7 - Dr Dreadful
Then the thrust of the discussion should be about their unlawfulness, which I did not see in your article Alexander.
Hmm.
So the sub-heading "What Is and Isn't Legal" didn't clue you in?
8 - Alexander J Smith III
-Dr. Dreadful
LOL. I mean that section was there just to spell out what the current laws say. I can understand where Pablo is coming from, but I felt that discussing why the current laws are overstepping, or unconstitutional would have been slightly off topic and could really use an entire piece to cover that.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, Alexander, your article can indeed be the jumping-off point for a discussion on the illegality (or otherwise) of the legislation. But Pablo isn't interested in having a discussion. He has already decided that the laws are unconstitutional and will merely scoff at anything anybody says to the contrary. Hence my ironic comment.
10 - pablo
It is ok Dread I know you like to take a swipe at me anytime you get the chance.
11 - pablo
And Dread yes I will scoff at anyone who says the contrary regarding the Patriot Act, who claims that it does not violate the Constitution, as it clearly does, it is not debatable, however that probably will not stoop the esteemed Supreme Court from saying otherwise.
As to discussion, I spent several years on this site discussing the issues of the day, now I prefer sniping. And snipe away I will when I choose to Dread, and I know each and every time that I do, you will be there to point your finger at me. Enjoy. :)
12 - Dr Dreadful
Fair enough, Pablo, although as I said, if all you're interested in is sniping about the unlawfulness of the Patriot Act then you can't really complain that Alexander isn't discussing it.