Briefs

Marcia Savage

San Francisco - Privacy watchdogs and solution providers are urging
caution as the federal government cracks down on security in the wake
of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"The biggest concern is the risk to individual civil liberties and
what we'll have to give up to ensure a higher level of security," said
Larry Ponemon, CEO of Privacy Council, a Dallas-based solution
provider. "Clearly, we're going to have to give up something. That's a
given, but how much do we have to give up legitimately?"

Increased use of surveillance systems to protect public safety must be
implemented responsibly so that it strikes a balance with privacy,
Ponemon said. If it's not managed correctly, the risk of Big Brother
scenarios looms, he said.

"Once you forgo your privacy, your individual freedom as an American,
I don't think it's going to be that easy to get it back," Ponemon
said.

Federal officials have moved quickly on the domestic security
issue. U.S.  Attorney General John Ashcroft last week asked Congress
to pass stricter anti-terrorism laws, including broader wiretapping
authority for law enforcement agencies.

Immediately after the attacks, the Senate passed the Combating
Terrorism Act of 2001, which includes expanded federal wiretapping
authority.

"There have been a number of calls, some already acted on, for more
extensive surveillance by law enforcement with fewer questions asked
and fewer checks and balances," said Jason Catlett, president of
Junkbusters, a Green Brook, N.J.-based consumer privacy firm.

Privacy Council last Thursday created the Council of Ethical
Surveillance, a 14-member group of government and business leaders and
privacy and security experts that will work to ensure public safety
concerns are balanced with personal freedoms.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization
based in San Francisco, urged government officials to "act
deliberately" and "approve only measures that are effective in
preventing terrorism while protecting the freedoms of Americans."

Some security experts are worried about the future of cryptography as
the government responds to the terrorist assault. Consultant Phil
Zimmermann, the creator of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) cryptographic
software, cautioned policy makers not to make hasty decisions.

"Momentous political decisions that could affect the whole of society
for the next generation should be made after careful deliberation and
not at our moment of maximum emotional pressure," he said.

The federal government's decision in the late 1990s to relax
encryption export controls came after long debate and analysis by
federal officials, academics, the computer industry and others,
Zimmermann said. Their conclusion was that "society is better served
by the availability of strong cryptography than without it," he said.

Strong cryptography helps protect the national infrastructure,
Zimmermann added. "We could open ourselves up to [further] attack if
the use of strong cryptography is weakened," he said.

Roger Blohm, director of managed services at Satel, a Salt Lake
City-based security solution provider, also said he's concerned about
encryption's future. Encryption export controls created headaches for
American companies, Blohm said, adding that he's concerned about the
government mandating access to private data.

"Companies need to cooperate to solve crimes such as the disaster in
New York," Blohm said. "Companies are less likely to cooperate with
the government if they don't have the guarantee of privacy."

But Oli Thordarson, president of Alvaka Networks, Huntington Beach,
Calif., said the American public might be willing to trade some degree
of privacy for heightened security, at least for the time being.

"It doesn't really matter what's right or what civil liberties people
are saying at this point," Thordarson said. "You have a national
community that's scared and doesn't understand technology. And if the
FBI says this will help them do their job, they're probably going to
get it."

see http://www.crn.com/