Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Encryption Technology and the Patriot Act
One of the most controversial security measures instated after the attacks of September 11th was the imposition of additional penalties upon criminals who used encryption technology in their crimes. The justification for these added penalties "up to five years for the first offense and ten years after that" was that "criminals who use encryption will commit crimes that will be tougher to solve or prevent," and the more stringent punishment would "make criminals think twice before scrambling their messages" (Proposed encryption, 2004, USA Today). The logic seems flawed: someone would willingly commit a crime, yet would do so in a more ineffective way, for fear of the harsher sentence he or she might receive, if caught committing the crime while using encryption technology?
Civil libertarians warned the law could result in more stringent sentences for relatively minor offenses. Theoretically, because most shopping websites use encryption technology, someone who did not pay sales tax on a purchase could receive five to ten extra years in prison, or someone who made a mistake on an online tax form could receive a far harsher sentence than someone who used a paper form. (Proposed encryption, 2004, USA Today). As Bruce Schneier's text Schneier on Security indicates, encryption is being increasingly used by watchful and responsible people to protect their security online. The concern about implicating an innocent person or giving a harsh sentence to someone for a minor offense is not far-fetched given the ubiquitous nature of encryption technology. The useful and benign nature of encryption means that to increase the potential penalties for a crime simply for using encryption may allow many small and possibly great injustices to occur within the judicial system.
References
Proposed encryption laws could prove draconian, many fear. (2003, March 31). USA Today.
Retrieved December 17, 2009 at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-03-31-crypto-rights_x.htm
Schneier, Bruce. (2008). Schneier on Security. New York: Wiley.
PATRIOT ACT V. FOURTH AMENDMENT Patriot Act & 4th Amendment The Fourth Amendment was created in 1791 primarily to end the existence of general warrants, which the American colonialists hated and feared. These warrants were used by the English government to conduct door-to-door searches and mass arrests, often as a coercive method for achieving social and political goals (Maclin and Mirabella, 2011, p. 1052). With this history in mind the text of
FBI vs. Apple in Relation to the Patriot Act America is divided over the tradeoff between personal privacy and security needs. The focus is, now, on the government surveillance, but there are concerns over how data is being used by businesses. The issue was raised after the federal court was requested to force Apple to assist the FBI to unlock one of the phones used by a suspect in the terrorist
According to Reidenberg (2000: 1318), policy in the United States protects personal information according to a market-dominated paradigm, where limited statutory and common law rights are granted for information privacy. In Europe, on the other hand, the privacy protection norm is dominated by privacy rights. The European Union, for example, requires Member States to include comprehensive statutory protections for its citizens when it comes to privacy rights. The fact that
ERP Nation Cyber-security in the U.S. Since 911, Federal agencies dedicated to critical infrastructure in the United States have contributed significant allocation to upgrading cyber-systems toward risk mitigation against threat. A major challenge to this effort is the persistence of 'legacy systems' or older propriety architectures that are non-standard to command syntax. Replacement of legacy systems that were originally implemented as internal 'unique' security platforms for control of facilities, out flows of
E., the company) that has technical control over telecommunications networks and thus technical ability to access communications, versus a party that is duly authorized to actually access those communications via a warrant (Mares, 2002). Although, as is consistent with the British model of legal evolution that relies heavily on interpretation of judicial action and precedent rather than overt legislative action, there have been no new statues issued in the intervening
The fact that industrial control systems may be vulnerable to infiltration by other citizens, or international parties puts laws pertaining to intersection of systems transmission at the forefront of priorities for us all. At present, telecommunications interference of private citizens holds an up to a five-year prison sentence by U.S. federal law. How cyberterrorism is addressed, when the stakes are heightened, leaves a whole host of opportunities for citizens, and