More RIAA News: ISP Ordered To Reveal File-Swapper's Identity

[Wulfere]

Here is something interesting...I was clued into this info on Tech TV. I have friends who work for an ISP and yes this is true. This was indeed passed by the House of Representatives on July 15, 2002. The second paragraph effects ALL of us on the Internet. I went to the site they recommended and filled out the info for this letter to be sent to my congressman and senator. I can only hope that it may make some difference.

I am writing to express my opposition to Section 225 of the Homeland Security Act (H.R. 5710, HSA). Formerly known as the Cyber Security Enhancement Act (CSEA), which was passed by the House of Representatives on July 15, 2002, this legislation would unacceptably damage my privacy rights in electronic communication. In particular, I am concerned with the act's expansion of government surveillance capabilities and the elimination of safe harbors for first-time interceptors of cellular phone traffic.

Section 225(d) is an alarming expansion of the "emergency exception" to judicial review requirements for obtaining voicemail and email. In particular, the act's "good faith" requirement for service providers seems ripe for abuse. By relaxing the standard from a "reasonable belief" to "a good faith belief," the act seems to encourage the use of scare tactics and alarmism, rather than evidence and acts, to uncover information. Under the provision, a provider has no incentive to protect a customers' privacy or obligation to report inquiries.

Further, an emergency is no longer required to be "imminent" for disclosure to be made. In other words, an indeterminate threat that may take place at some unknown point in the future is enough to reveal personal information. This standard is unacceptably weak.

Also, Section 225 of HSA allows disclosure to "a Federal, State, or local government entity," not just law enforcement agents. As it is written, the act seems to allow public high school principals and tax collectors to request information from service providers.

I disagree with the provisions outlined in Sec. 225(j) as well. I support cellular phone privacy, but I don't believe that a harsher penalty for radio hobbyists is the way to achieve it. Cellular phone traffic does not become more secure by charging first-time offenders with felonies and putting them in jail for five years. Security comes from robust cryptography and an industry commitment to improving the technology.

Security is an important goal, as are your constituents' civil liberties. What we need is balance, not the rampant expansion of law enforcement power. Please remove Section 225 of the Homeland Security Act. Thank you for your time.

You can find out more at this site.