Gilmore Commission Recommends Secret 'Cyber Court'

hillct writes: "Yesterday the House Committee on Science received newly released cyber security recommendations from Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III of the Gilmore Commission. Most disturbing among these recommendations was a call for "Establishment of a special 'Cyber Court' patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"." See also the Wired story. Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

Comments

We need a secret court....

[M-2]

like a fish needs a ham sandwich.

Wasn't a BIG part of the whole freedom thing supposed to be to give us a TRANSPARENT legal system, so that EVERYONE could see what was going on? Isn't that the theoretical basis of the entire judicial system of the United States?

Isn't that why the hell anyone who's actually read history understands the sheer terror that the words 'Star Chamber' means?

I'm going to change my name to something like Cromwell, I think. Oliver Cromwell. That would be a suitable name for the US of the 21st century.

Re:We need a secret court....

[tdye]

Oh, brother. Of course you don't inform the subject of a wiretap that they're being monitored. The point here is that, even though a wiretap is secret, you still have to prove to a judge, in documents that are publicly available during a trial (if any), that there was 'probable cause' to perform the wiretap. What Gilmore is proposing is that you should be able to ignore probable cause, and that the govt. should be able to use secret evidence, unavailable even to the defense in a trial, to justify the wire.

Of course surveillance should be secret. The judicial branch, however, thrives only if the people trust it, and secrecy destroys trust.

Two good points, actually.

[Stonehand]

1. The article specifically mentions that one problem with putting these cases through the general court system is that the technical details are important, but often not terribly understood. A specialized court could be composed of jurists who have technical knowledge, which IMHO is something that would be welcomed instead of blasted.

2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?

Slippery slopes and poor logic

[raumdass]

Next time someone tries to say that the slippery slope argument is an invalid one in regards to the "adjustment" of ones liberties, remember this:

Clinton passed the Affective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism act, that amongst other rather non-liberal ideas made it possible to hold a non-US citizen for as long as we like, without letting them know the charges or evidence against them, and allows us to try them in what amounts to a secret court. You combine this with the legislation passed and pending referenced in the article and it doesn't take a political scientist to see a pattern.

So much for jurisprudence. Now we look to aim this thinking at "hackers"? We want to equate hacking with terrorism? To even mention someone damaging a computer system and killing thousands of innocent people in the same breath only serves to trivialize those that have died at the hands of real terrorists.
So what's next? If you protest the WTO, does that make you a terrorist? How about standing up for the rights of others, or god forbid, the planet? How about interfering with commerce by say, trafficking in copyrighted material?

Everyday I hear of more and more extreme measures to combat "terrorism". What point will there be in protecting our country if what we are left with is a government as totalitarian as those we claim to oppose?

~raum

Jesus, here we go again

[Jennifer Ever]

So, run this by me one more time...

We need to bend the rules to get these "hackers" because..?

a) My AOL password is of greater importance than the guy who got shot down by the river.
b) Current courts are too slow in dealing with hackers, who we all know move at incredible speeds, often using 5 keyboards--Matrix-style--to gain access to both secret CIA files and ICBM launch codes in a matter of minutes.
c) Government is in the pocket of corporate America, and corporate America will never be able to convince people to hand over control of their lives and money if there's concern that someone other than the good folks at MS will have access to it.

Well, figure it out for yourself.

Anyway...

The problem with laws like these is that they're pushed as being a response to a specific threat, but once in place, are never limited to dealing with that threat. So this is to protect our national security? How many "hackers" in this country are threats to national security? Wouldn't it be safer to say that the actual threat is the vulnerability in government systems? After all, if someone in America can gain access to classified information, it stands to reason that someone in China or Iraq could do the same. And what constitutes a threat anyway? Someone who gets into systems that are secured tighter than the government's is a potential threat--even though that person has never acted against the government, will they be tried and jailed as a threat to national security simply for what they can do, not what they've done?

And does anyone in a position of power consider these sorts of things?

Ye Flipping Gods!

[bill.sheehan]

What's next? An anonymous denunciation hotline for turning in your neighbors? "His attic light is on. He's probably up there with his computer again. He's one of those strange quiet types - keeps to himself. Can't be trusted."

I'm reminded of two lessons from my wasted youth. The first was a book called, "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis in 1935. It chronicled the creation of a totalitarian state in America. An excellent cautionary tale, I recommend it.

The second was a lesson I received in group dynamics from my high school theater group's director, a guy named Lou. About a hundred of us kids had gathered together in the gym, doing warmup exercises. Lou got up and introduced a new exercise. We were going to count up from one to ten, slowly adjusting our attitude and appearance from utter dejection to triumphant at ten. One... We were slumped over and suicidal. Two... we straighted a little... Three... perhaps I shall not hang myself today. And so on to a hearty, confident, triumphant roar of TEN! "TEN!" shouted Lou. "TEN!!" we yelled back. "SEIG HEIL!" shouted Lou. "SEIG HEIL!!" we roared. "SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG..."

Lou clapped his hands sharply for attention. He looked at us for a long moment. "Never forget," he said softly, "how easy it was for one man to make you do that."

I never will.

Remember Peter McWilliams

Wow..

[Mike Schiraldi]

Who would have ever thought that Mitnick got off easy?