Slashdot Mirror
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?
The federal courts are equipped to handle cyber-terrorism or threats. In fact, they already handle a very similar thing: mail fraud. There are a million varieties of danger posed by use of networked systems. However, the basic premis of the federal courts having authority is that 1) it generally uses and affects entities in multiple states 2) it can pose a threat to national security. That being said, why do we need another court? It seems to me the old coots that wrote this thing called the Constitution already have this covered...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
I mean, come on. Realistcally I can at least empathize when the gov't says that sometimes it has to operate outside the legal system in issues of National Sec. I wouldnt want a suspected terrorist to know he's being monitored. I might fall under that same watchfull eye but that's a sacrifice I'd make.
But why would a hacker court need to be so secretive? If the gov't is afraid of a group of people being able to shut down and disrupt major networks, then those networks need to be secured, not the system for monitoring them and prosecuting them! I mean, those old farts in office invented that stupid saying of ounce of prevention, pound of cure!
BOSTON SUCKS!
A cyber court should exist only online, and all cyber jurors should have a minimum of a BS in computer science, computer engineering or electrical engineering.
There is precisely one justification for the secret courts established under the Foreign Intellgence Surveillance Act: national security. The secret courts that meet in that jurisdiction concern themselves with matters of espionage and highly sensitive information that would jeopardize national security if made public.
I personally can't stand it. The 5th amendment and 6th amendments clearly lay out due process and the rights of the accused who stands trial, and few if any of these guarantees are honored by these secret tribunals. There is no textual basis for a national-security exception to any of the Bill of Rights, and it flies in the face of fundamental principles of fairness.
However, at least with national security, we have a really damn important interest being protected; if anything would justify tearing up the Bill of Rights, it would be on the level of national security. But what in tarnation is there to protect in a cyber court? Trade secrets? The integrity of corporate networks? Is this truly something so pernicious and of such overriding importance? Hardly.
They've got their national-security exception. If it's "terrorism" and it's conducted by foreign agents, then the Foreign Intelligence court already has jurisdiction. If we go down this path, then nothing will remain protected under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, and that is a very scary prospect.
Hooray for corporate interests, indeed.
On the whole I think the American people have far too much mistrust of our government which after all is elected by us, and fully accountable to us every four years at the ballot box.
Every day we trust people better qualified than ourselves to do tasks for which we do not posess the required skill. (piloting a plane, cooking our hamburgers etc etc). Why should we be worried about a bit of secrecy when the national interest is threatened ?
Sounds to me like objectors to this scheme are siding with the terrorists. I fear the fundamentalists in Afghanistan far more than any suit in Washington.
I would even argue as this guy at adequacy does that perhaps we need a few more of our 'freedoms' re-evaluated in the light of recent event.
That's not even the same damn thing. I wonder if the Freedom of Info Act would allow someone that's being wiretapped to find out. But I digress. What we're talking about here is not the investigation where there is a need for secrecy. It's the hearing after the investigation, where the evidence is laid out and and you are judged by a jury of your peers.
Without examination of the procedings, the evidence, and the findings, you're giving a court far too much power. Our founders knew that because it's common sense. "Abosolute power corrupts absolutely."
-Disclaimer: This will come off as an attempt to get support for a certain democratic gubenatorial candidate to some people. Please realize that I hate politicians in general, and only want to see Gilmore lose his standing because of the way he handles himself.-
Jim Gilmore is currently the chairman of the republican national committee. Almost all of his political power stems from this, because as governor of Virginia Gilmore has burned quite a few bridges and royally pissed off many important Republican politicans (You can read about the details here.
His unpopular activites are now causing other Republicans to want him out of power in the RNC, and they are threatening to oust him if he cannot get Mark Early elected Governor in his place this fall. Unfortunately, the Early campaign has been terribly mismanaged, and Early is a rather unpopular figure with Republicans, Democrats, and Virginia voters. Many people in politics and the press have already declared Democratic candidate Mark Warner the winner of the election. By voting for Mark Warner, you can help the Republican party finally be totally sick of Jim Gilmore and cast him out. Please do.
>Next thing you know, I'll be needed to license my palm pilot.
Actually, you may soon need a license for your palm pilot. There is a patent case where Xerox claims that palm's graffiti language infringes its patent. If Xerox wins, you will have to pay royalties on any new palm/handspring/sony you buy.
Now, to the point: if a private party can make you license a palm pilot, the government can probably try. Do you use your palm in interstate commerce?
It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back
Lots of things are dangerous to others including, not surprisingly, lots of things that are illegal.
There isn't a special secret court for dealing with serial killer investigations.
There isn't a special secret court dealing with industrial pollution of water supply investigations.
There isn't a special secret court for dealing with burglary investigations.
All these things are dangerous to others. What's so special about hacking that it needs these special measures?
In the Wired article it says "Gov. James Gilmore (R-Virginia), the commission 's chairman, said Wednesday that federal judges have been far too sluggish in approving search warrants and eavesdropping of online miscreants."
The courts aren't issuing warrants as easily as the government likes so their solution is to have a secret court who's decisions can't be scrutinised act as a rubber stamp instead.
IF he really said what the Wired article claims he did then is frightening that people who think like that can be allowed to work in positions of power and responsibility.