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.

Isn't this a bit redundant?

[weez75]

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...

Why Yes, Yes we do need another secret court.

[maggard]

For over 200 years the USA has suffered under it's impractical Constitution and the unworkable so-called "Bill of Rights". We need to move forward into a new era where we can compete with every tin-pot dictatorship and repressive regime on their own level!

Only criminals need fear this - you're not a criminal are you?

Why do 'Hacker Cases' Need a Secret Court?

[Fatal0E]

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!

Beautiful.

[dave-fu]

Forget the right to a fair trial, hackers are threatening our country's very lifeblood! Or something equally dramatic.
The good news is that they won't be high-profile cases where there's some sort of onus on the government to come through in a big, excessively punitive way (are shoplifters forbidden to walk in stores after they've served their time? are murderers forbidden to be around people after they've served their time? embezzlers forbidden to be around company books after they've done theirs? then why exactly are mitnick et. al forbidden to be around computers/electronic equipment after they've served theirs?). The bad news is that we'll have a new branch of the government with a minimum of public overview running wild on an increasingly marginalized subset of society.

if they can do it so can we

[how_would_i_know]

"Instead, Gilmore told the House Science committee, the commission will recommend that a "cyber court" be created with extraordinary powers to authorize electronic surveillance and secret searches of suspected hackers' homes and offices."

Well... maybe we should convice some judge to create a new 'cyber congress' with extraordinary powers of resistance to soft money.

Yeah That's Just What We Need

[Greyfox]

Secret courts and a national ID card. We also need to be able to create laws and retroactively punish people under them, be able to jail people for speaking out against the government and be able to house troops in normal peoples' houses. Oh, and tax tea at 3x its normal price.

Could be interesting

[Magumbo]

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.

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

Time for Sesame Street again.

[Tackhead]

From Wired:
> Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) suggested additional punitive measures. "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences,"

Let's see here...

• Scanning port 137.
  
• DDOSing eBay.
  
• r00ting j00r b0x3n and writing 4LL J00r B4$3 R B3L0NG 2 US on your website!
  
• Flying three 767s, fully-loaded with fuel, into office buildings, murdering 6000-7000 people in the process.

"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong."

I'm gave up expecting wisdom out of our Congresscritters years ago. As for their ability to grasp complex technological and constitutional issues, that's also hoping too much.

But at the moment, I'd settle for a demonstration that they're capable of understanding Sesame Street.

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

what is Star Chamber

[onepoint]

For those that don't know what Star Chamber is please go to
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~altmann/star-chamber.ht ml

it's a quick summary.

-onepoint

Wow..

[Mike Schiraldi]

Who would have ever thought that Mitnick got off easy?

Secret hearing != Secret trial; NO Star Chamber

[Paul Bain]

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp The poster (hillct) and Slashdot employee Michael state that

"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 [FISA]." . . . . Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

I am a lawyer-shyster. I think that hillct and Michael (in addition to everyone mentioning the term "Star Chamber," a synonym for a secret trial) may have overreacted or misinterpreted this news. First, secret trials contravene the U.S. Constitution. Any statute (federal or state) purporting to empower a court to hear and decide crimial liability in secret would be unconstitutional. A judicial hearing is not a trial, however, and the hearings contemplated under FISA are only those relating to whether law enforcement agents may surveil a particular communication or party/parties.

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And secrecy in the judicial branch is not always undesirable. Nearly ALL grand juries meet, hear evidence (while a judge presides), and deliberate in secret. But they make no determination as to criminal liability. They simply indict (or fail to indict), a step necessary to having a person tried. Secrecy in certain judicial proceedings is absolutely necessary -- secrecy is not always undesirable.