Subpoena Management
May 29, 2006
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States law enforcement bodies attempt to secure information from corporations about clients and suppliers. This move however reached such levels that some companies had to create special departments to deal with governmental demands. a process often called “subpoena management.”
Banks, Internet Service Providers and other data processing companies say that police and intelligence agencies have been increasingly coming to them looking for information that could help authorities to stop money launderers, pedophiles or terrorists.
Internet and financial companies became a target by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Government forced them to choose between customers’ rights to privacy and their own willingness to help the the Federal institutions without acting as agents of the government.
The situation is getting very complicated when it comes to companies that are working as a contractors for government.
Time Warner - America Online has been forced to hire a dozen of employees, including several former prosecutors. They handle about 12,000 requests a year from Federal, State bodies and local police. The department works 24/7 and maintains a special hotline that police or federal agents can call anytime.
The media giant has even published a manual for law enforcement agencies that contains information about how long the company retains subscriber information, unread email and etc.
AOL said that the most common governmental requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography. Close behind are cases dealing with identity theft. The internet company announced sometimes the police requests are highly targeted, but other times are they got turned down due as inadequated. AOl claims that every request that comes in from law enforcement is reviewed by an attorney with years of experience.
But there are other cases where companies have no choice. So they just surrender records. New powers granted to the government agencies under the Patriot Act mean that Washington can secretly access people’s records from businesses without having to provide any notification or seek a permission by court. At the same time companies are prohibited by the law from disclosing that they had received such requests.
The Justice Department reported that the FBI has issued 9,200 administrative subpoenas (National Security Letters) in 2005, seeking information about 3,500 American citizens and legal residents from their banks, credit card, phone, ISP and web hosting companies without a judge’s approval. The records are supposed to be about people investigated for spying or terrorist activities, but the FBI is not required to show how they are connected to any of those.
Some companies have been withstanding to government investigations before 9/11. AOL first noticed law enforcement bodies that requested to snoop company members’ online activities in the mid-90s in child-porn cases. Fedex and UPS struggled with the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency over the attempts to get unfettered access to the shippers’ systems as part of the war against traffick of drugs.
Since 2001 however, the pressure on businesses has grown and they have been required to provide electronic information about customers’ names, addresses, shopping preferences and even personal and diversion activities. The Departments of Homeland Security, Defense and Justice, and CIA have viewed this data as an important infromation that that can be them to prevent crime activities and to identify potential terrorist threats attacks.
The Justice Department demanded last year that AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft MSN and Google shall hand over customer search records in a bid to prove that filtering software doesn’t screen kids from online porn. Google refused, saying the government abused its subpoena power by seeking information that had nothing to do with criminal prosecution. A judge ultimately ruled that Google need turn over only 50,000 Web addresses, not the one million originally put on writ.
But even sometimes companies resist to governmental requests they are not willing to do so. Phone companies for example have a history of contact with the government. The Federal institutions have been one of the telecoms’ biggest customers and phone companies multimillion contracts for services. Other IT companies also find themselves in the same situation. In any case it is not justifiable to stand agains the government even it has gone to far in its attempt to take control over the trivial round.
Web Becomes A Part Of Political Agenda
May 23, 2006
The Internet service providers (ISP), are there to let us get onto the Web. Soon they might start keeping us off the Internet if the US government imposes new laws and regulations. There were hearings held in The US Congress over this issue. It is not a secret for anyone that as the Internet looms larger in American politics, US Congress faces a tough debate over how to balance election campaign finance restrictions and the free speech rights of web sites and internet bloggers.
US election campaign finance reform had been debated for years without any major changes to laws. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act however was passed in 2002. It banned national political party committees from accepting or spending “soft money” contributions. The decision was challenged in McConnell v. FEC in 2003.
“Hard” and “Soft” Money
Campaign money in the United States election system comes in two forms: “hard money” and “soft money”. “Hard money” refers to donations made directly to political candidates. These must be declared with the name of the donor, which becomes public knowledge, and are limited by legislation. “Soft money” are money that are not made directly to a candidate’s campaign. Soft money refers to contributions given, at least nominally, to a political party for “party building” activities rather than for the direct support of particular candidates and campaigns.
What’s On?
Hoping to influence a Federal Election Commission (FEC) rule-making House leaders promoted, March this year, a bill to exclude the Internet from restrictions on public communications under campaign law. Critics however hinted the real goal is to knock a hole in the 2002 ban against using “soft money” contributions from corporations and labor unions for political advertising.
The Wall Street Journal reported that conservative Redstate and liberal Daily Kos political blogs joined forces, saying the FEC must “tread lightly” for fear that new campaign reporting rules will “chill free-spirited discourse online”.
Proponents say money can not dominate the market as it might with broadcasts for a single candidate or point of view. Opponents argue that dot-com political ads are potential force, and a blanket exemption for paid content on blogs would invite abuse as well as efforts to unravel campaign-finance limits.
This debate is about big ideas and both sides say they receive bipartisan support. A debate in November 2005 showed a narrow House majority of 225 members supported exempting Internet communications.
Net’s Neutrality?
Is Network Neutrality an answer of apprehensions about web’s role in politics? A whole virtual world emerged only a decade since the commercialization of the Internet began. The number of users, the speed of internet connections and the variety of things everyone can do online created web culture. This process has been accomplished with light regulatory and in some countries even out of any regulations. That means officials have not been involved in decision makeing process over how to develop the Net. There were an important “exception to the rule” - the pornography and gambling. Those have been put under regulations over the Internet.
Having a whole industry out of regulations has produced some results. Web surfers can make cheap or free phone calls, legally download music, movies and software. They can also watch a network television shows online. Some of the internet business ideas succeeded, others failed. Many of them however would never have been even tested if a regulatory bodies such as national goverments or the U.S. Federal Communications had to say “Yes” first!
Do We Need To Regulate What Isn’t Broken
Becoming a part of political agenda is a worst thing that may happen to Internet. The web improved a lot out of government control and probably is a better ideia to keep it less regulated. Otherwise we will step back from the idea of open market! The good news is that things like “open access networks” and “free trade” are both conservative an liberal values and they can not be put on partisan political debate! It is better to keep the web clean out of political debate instead of putting restrictions because of the election and political agenda.
Discuss this topic at B10WH Web Hosting Forums!
