Advertisement

Cybercrimes v. Cyberliberties

  • Nadine Strossen
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 43)

Abstract

Cyberspace is an inherently global medium. Cybercrime and terrorism are worldwide concerns. Preserving human rights in cyberspace is also an international concern.

Keywords

Sexual Harassment Free Speech Child Pornography Online Privacy American Civil Liberty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. An alternate version of this essay was printed in the International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 14, no. 1 (March 2000): 11–24. For research assistance with this essay, including drafting the footnotes, Professor Strossen gratefully acknowledges her chief aide, Amy L. Tenney, and her research assistant, Cesar de Castro. The footnotes were added through the efforts of Professor Strossen’s staff, who thereby have earned both the credit and the responsibility for them (which Professor Strossen has not reviewed, and for which she disclaims both credit and responsibility).Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    See, for example, Global Internet Liberty Campaign, Regardless of Frontiers: Protecting the Human Right to Freedom of Expression on the Global Internet, 1998, available at <http://www.cdt.org/gilc/report.html>Google Scholar
  3. 1a.
    Global Internet Liberty Campaign, Privacy and Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice, 1998, available at <http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/>.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    Williams v. Garrett, 722 R Supp. 254,256 (W.D. Va. 1989) (quoting Thomas Jefferson).Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    See Nadine Strossen and Ernie Allen, “Megan’s Law and the Protection of the Child in the Online Age,” American Criminal Law Review 35, no. 4 (summer 1998): 1319–41. In a related vein, Professor Frederick Schauer of Harvard University testified against the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, a federal law punishing anyone who possesses any work that depicts someone who appears to be a minor engaged in “sexually explicit conduct.” Schauer stated that the law would “wind up hurting rather than helping the cause of prosecuting the . . . individuals who exploit children by diverting resources away from actual prosecution of child molesters.” (See Nadine Strossen, “Bang the Tin Drum No More.” Monthly column for Intellectual Capital, M July, 1997, <http://www.intellectual capital.com>).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    See Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212 (1975) ([M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection.); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (First Amendment rights... are available to ... students...); United Nations Children’s Fund (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. See Article 13 under “Convention Full Text” tab from <http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm>: “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.”
  7. 5.
    See Electronic Privacy Information Center, Cryptography and Liberty 1999: An International Survey of Encryption Policy, (1999), <http://www2.epic.org/reports/crypto 1999.html>.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    The concept of the right to privacy as personal security against unwarranted intrusion by others is embodied in many legal guarantees of that right, including the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...” Indeed, many individuals feel particularly threatened by governmental intrusions.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    See S.D. Warren and L.D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4, no. 5 (1890): 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J. dissenting), overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    See National Research Council, Cryptography’s Role in Securing the Information Society, ed. Kenneth W Dam and Herbert S. Lin (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), <http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/crisis/>.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 223 (a, d) (1999).Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 231 (1999).Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    See American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999).Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Id. at 498.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    See American Civil Liberties Union v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997).Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Bernstein v. U.S., 974 R Supp. 1288 (N.D. Ca. 1997), aff’d,176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. May 6, 1999) (holding that encryption regulations were an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment). But cf. Junger v. Dale, 8 F. Supp. 2d 708, 715 (N.D. Oh. 1998) (holding that although encryption source code may occasionally be expressive, its export is not protected conduct under the First Amendment); Kam v. U.S. Dept of State, 925 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to encryption export regulations). In mid-September 1999, the Clinton Administration announced that it will relax encryption export controls. See J. Clausing, “In a Reversal, White House Will End Data-Encryption Export Curbs,” New York Times, 17 September 1999. However, even with the Clinton Administration’s recent pronouncement, civil libertarians continue to point out the problems with encryption regulations—namely, that export control laws on encryption are unconstitutional prior restraints on speech, and that the new proposed regulations apply only to commercial, not academic, work; see Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Latest Governmental Encryption Scheme Still Unconstitutional: EFF-Sponsored Legal Challenge Will Proceed,” 16 September 1999, <http://www.eff.org/91699_crypto_release.html>. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit withdrew the three-judge panel decision in Bernstein and ordered the case to be reheard en banc. Bernstein v. U.S., No. 97–16686, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 24324 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 1999).Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    See Global Internet Liberty Campaign, Wayne Madsen et. al, “Cryptography and Liberty 1998: An International Survey of Encryption Policy,” February 1998, <http://www.gilc.org/crypto/crypto-survey.html>.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
  21. 19.
  22. 20.
    See Y. Akdeniz and N. Strossen, “Obscene and Indecent Speech,” in The Internet, Law and Society, ed. C. Walker, Y. Akdeniz, and D. Wall (Essex: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000).Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    See Garrison Keillor, Statement to the Senate Subcommittee on Education, 29 March 1990 (Testimony on NEA Grant Funding and Restrictions) 136 Cong. Rec. E. 993 (1990).Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    See American Civil Liberties Union Freedom Network, “Cyber-Liberties,” <http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html>.
  25. 23.
    See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997); American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999).Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    See American Library Assn v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    See Urofsky v. Allen, 995 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Va. 1998), overruled by Urofsky v. Gilmore, 167 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    See American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D.N.M. 1998).Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    See Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F. Supp. 2d 737 (E.D. Mich. 1999).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    See Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998).Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    See Urfosky v. Gilmore, 167 F3d 191 (4th Cir. 1999)Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    See Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 674–75 (1994); Pickery v. Board ofEduc, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    See Urofsky v. Allen, 995 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Va. 1998).Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    See Urofsky v. Gilmore, 167 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 223(d)(1)(B).Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 223(a)(l)(B)(ii).Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 231(a)(1).Google Scholar
  39. 37.
  40. 38.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 231(e)(2)(B).Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    See 47 U.S.C. Section 231(e)(6).Google Scholar
  42. 40.
    See Nadine Strossen, Defending Pornography. Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Womens Rights (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1995; reprint New York: New York University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  43. 41.
    See American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999).Google Scholar
  44. 42.
    Id. at 492.Google Scholar
  45. 43.
    See E. Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1997), 416.Google Scholar
  46. 44.
    See American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 R Supp. 2d 473, 495 (E.D. Pa. 1999).Google Scholar
  47. 45.
    Id. at 497.Google Scholar
  48. 46.
  49. 47.
    See American Civil Liberties Union, “Internet Censorship Battle Moves to Appeals Court,” Press Release, 4 April, 1999, available at <http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n040299a.html>.Google Scholar
  50. 48.
    See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).Google Scholar
  51. 49.
    See Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998).Google Scholar
  52. 50.
    See American Civil Liberties Union, “Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?” 1997, <http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/burning.html>Google Scholar
  53. 50a.
    also American Civil Liberties Union, “Censorship In a Box,” 1998, <http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/box.html>.Google Scholar
  54. 51.
    See American Civil Liberties Union, “Censorship In A Box,” 1998 <http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/box.html>.Google Scholar
  55. 52.
    See Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998).Google Scholar
  56. 53.
    Id. at 567.Google Scholar
  57. 54.
    See Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); and Nadine Strossen, Defending Pornography. Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights, (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1995; reprint New York: New York University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    See Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552,564–65 (E.D.Va. 1998).Google Scholar
  59. 56.
    Id. at 564.Google Scholar
  60. 57.
    Id. at 570.Google Scholar
  61. 58.
    Id. at 567.Google Scholar
  62. 59.
  63. 60.
    See D. Hedgpeth, “Libraries Abandon Court Fight; Board Won’t Appeal Internet Policy Rulings,” Washington Post, 22 April, 1999.Google Scholar
  64. 61.
    For detailed information on all of these cases, including the parties’ litigation papers and the courts’ rulings, see the ACLU’s Web site: <http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html>.
  65. 62.
    See Brian Gladman, “Wassenaar Controls, Cyber-Crime and Information Terrorism,” Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties (UK), September 1998, < http://www.cyber-rights.org/crypto/wassenaar.htm>.Google Scholar
  66. 63.
    See National Public Radio, “Feds Say E-Mail Scrambler is a Weapon,” National Public Radio Morning Edition, April 14, 1995.Google Scholar
  67. 64.
    See J. Fraser, “The Use of Encrypted, Coded and Secret Communications is an ‘Ancient Liberty’ Protected by the United States Constitution,” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 2 (1997): 25, n.123.Google Scholar
  68. 65.
    See National Research Council, Cryptography’s Role in Securing the Information Society, ed. Kenneth W. Dam and Herbert S. Lin, 1996, <http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/crisis/>.Google Scholar
  69. 66.
  70. 67.
    See Global Internet Liberty Campaign, “Cryptography is a Defensive Tool, Not a Weapon,” 14 September 1998, <http://www.gilc.org/crypto/wassenaar/gilc-statement-998.html>, 2.Google Scholar
  71. 68.
    See George Smith, “An Electronic Pearl Harbor? Not Likely,” Issues in Science and Technology Online, Fall 1998, <http://www.nap.edU/issues/15.l/smith.html>.Google Scholar
  72. 69.
  73. 70.
  74. 71.
  75. 72.
  76. 73.
    See The President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (Report Summary), “Critical Foundations: Thinking Differently,” October 1997, available at <http://www.ciao.gov/PCCIP/PCCIP_Report.pdf>.
  77. 74.
    See Andy Oram, “A Sacrifice to the War Against Cyber-Terrorism,” 1997, <http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/andyo/ar/terror_pub.html> (quoting the report issued by the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection on October 13, 1997 and presented by its Chairman Robert T. Marsh, before a Congressional Committee on November 5, 1997).Google Scholar
  78. 75.
    See Electronic Privacy Information Center (White Paper), “The Clinton Administration’s Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Presidential Decision Directive 63,” 22 May 1998, <http://www.epic.org/security/infowar/cip_ white_paper.html>.Google Scholar
  79. 76.
    See Brian Gladman, “Wassenaar Controls, Cyber-Crime and Information Terrorism,” Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties (UK), September 1998, <http://www.cyber-rights.org/crypto/wassenaar.htm>.Google Scholar
  80. 77.
    See Hal Abelson, Ross Anderson, Steven M. Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze, and Whitfield Diffie, “The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third Party Encryption,” A Report by an Ad Hoc Group of Cryptographers and Computer Scientists, September 1998. Available at <http://www.cdt.org/crypto/risks98>.Google Scholar
  81. 78.
    See Omega Foundation, “An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control,” September 1998, <http://www.jya.com/stoa-atpc-so.htm>.Google Scholar
  82. 79.
    See Global Internet Liberty Campaign, “Cryptography and Liberty 1998,” February 1998, <http://www.gilc.org/crypto/crypto-survey.html>.Google Scholar
  83. 79a.
    See also Electronic Privacy Information Center, Cryptography and Liberty 1999: An International Survey of Encryption Policy, 1999, <http://www2.epic.org/ reports/cryptol999.html>.Google Scholar
  84. 80.
    See Global Internet Liberty Campaign, Cryptography and Liberty 1998, February 1998, <http://www.gilc.org/crypto/crypto-survey.html>.Google Scholar
  85. 81.
    See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J. dissenting), overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadine Strossen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.New York Law SchoolUSA
  2. 2.American Civil Liberties UnionUSA

Personalised recommendations