Difference between revisions of "Janine Baranski"

From Hst250
Jump to: navigation, search
(Wiki Article: The Patriot Act Changed the Security of Online Communication)
(Wiki Article: The Patriot Act Changed the Security of Online Communication)
Line 66: Line 66:
 
Another way the government can legally obtain private information is via a warrant. The USA PATRIOT act extended law enforcement’s abilities to get warrants. Normally, a search warrant can only be validated by a judge in the area where the search will occur. Under the USA PATRIOT act, warrants related to investigations of terrorism may be issued by any judge, anywhere. As stated earlier, in order to gain access to email, as of the USA PATRIOT act, only a search warrant is needed to obtain the email. Now that search warrants can be obtained from any judge, it is more difficult as the suspect to challenge the search since you would have to get a lawyer from the state the warrant was issued from (Terrel, 2004). Sections 219 and 220 cover some changes to warrant issuing procedure. Section 219 is the section that allows federal judges to issue these “nationwide search warrants for investigations involving domestic or international terrorism.” This section does not sunset. Section 220 allows a search warrant for stored data to be valid anywhere in the United States (Plesser, 03/0).  One other type of warrant procedure that the USA PATRIOT act modified is called a sneak and peak warrant. A sneak and peek warrant is “one in which the government obtains a warrant and executes it without providing notice or providing a delayed notice to the target.” Usually law enforcement is legally required to provide notice to the target of the search before executing the warrant. There is an exception to this rule when law enforcement has reason to believe that someone, either the target himself or another person, will be harmed if the target is warned. As of Section 213, law enforcement only needs to show that giving the target notice of the search will jeopardize the investigation and they need not give it. Section 213 does not sunset (Terrel, 2004). Thus, email communication could potentially be read without the target’s knowledge if law enforcement feels that knowledge will jeopardize the investigation.
 
Another way the government can legally obtain private information is via a warrant. The USA PATRIOT act extended law enforcement’s abilities to get warrants. Normally, a search warrant can only be validated by a judge in the area where the search will occur. Under the USA PATRIOT act, warrants related to investigations of terrorism may be issued by any judge, anywhere. As stated earlier, in order to gain access to email, as of the USA PATRIOT act, only a search warrant is needed to obtain the email. Now that search warrants can be obtained from any judge, it is more difficult as the suspect to challenge the search since you would have to get a lawyer from the state the warrant was issued from (Terrel, 2004). Sections 219 and 220 cover some changes to warrant issuing procedure. Section 219 is the section that allows federal judges to issue these “nationwide search warrants for investigations involving domestic or international terrorism.” This section does not sunset. Section 220 allows a search warrant for stored data to be valid anywhere in the United States (Plesser, 03/0).  One other type of warrant procedure that the USA PATRIOT act modified is called a sneak and peak warrant. A sneak and peek warrant is “one in which the government obtains a warrant and executes it without providing notice or providing a delayed notice to the target.” Usually law enforcement is legally required to provide notice to the target of the search before executing the warrant. There is an exception to this rule when law enforcement has reason to believe that someone, either the target himself or another person, will be harmed if the target is warned. As of Section 213, law enforcement only needs to show that giving the target notice of the search will jeopardize the investigation and they need not give it. Section 213 does not sunset (Terrel, 2004). Thus, email communication could potentially be read without the target’s knowledge if law enforcement feels that knowledge will jeopardize the investigation.
  
 +
The USA PATRIOT act made one final change to a federal law that clarifies procedure in the case of a subpoena or a warrant being issued to a cable company. The Cable Act was passed in 1984 and it originally protected cable companies from having to disclose customer records even if law enforcement provided warrants or subpoenas. The company would often notify the customer that law enforcement had made the request for the information. A hearing would then be held in which the government had to give reason for gaining access to the records. Once cable companies began to provide internet service, this procedure applied to internet records as well. Section 211 removes this policy and there is no sunset provision for this section. Cable companies must disclose information in regard to internet services when issued a warrant or a subpoena by law enforcement (Terrel, 2004). This section cleared up a lot of confusion that came about when cable companies started providing internet service. Now they know how to react when law enforcement arrives with surveillance requests (Plesser, 03/0).
 +
 +
Although much of the Patriot act sunset in 2005, some sections are still in effect today. Section 224 listed the exceptions of the sunset. These exceptions still require service providers to provide bank and credit card numbers when subpoenaed, require cable companies to behave like other ISPs when issued subpoenas or warrants, allow pen registers to be used on internet traffic, allows nationwide warrants in terrorist investigations and does not require ISPs to store extra data in the event of a police investigation (Plesser, 03/0). These sections clearly still affect internet communication privacy but in a less obvious way, the other sections play their own part in the history of the digital age. Even though many of these sections are no longer valid, these laws may become reinstated in the future. As seen throughout the history of the digital age, ideas of the past can inspire norms of the future. If there were to be another terrorist attack, laws that proved useful from 2001 until 2005 may not sunset again. The Patriot act was an important stage in the development of government regulation of the internet. It addressed monitoring criminal activity online, which is important. We need our law enforcement to be able to investigate online as well as crime scenes but it is important that the privacy of individuals is also protected. As in a physical search, it is important that the police cannot just read our emails whenever they want. The Patriot act did attempt to protect the privacy of the individual without compromising the safety of all.
  
 
'''Works Cited'''
 
'''Works Cited'''

Revision as of 14:06, 26 June 2012

Wiki Entry #1: Chinese Abacus

The Chinese abacus or the suan-pan was first documented around 1200 A.D. It, like all abaci, was created to help with calculations. An abacus is a mechanical aid for counting. An abacus is made of a wooden frame with a upper and lower deck separated by a horizontal beam. Vertical poles run from top to bottom through this beam. Beads, used for counting, are located on these poles and can be slid up or down on them. The difference between abaci lies in the number and distribution of its beads. The suan-pan is a 2/5 abacus. This means that there are two beads in the upper deck and five in the lower. The beads in the upper deck have a value of 5 units and the beads of the lower deck have a value of 1 unit. The beads on each pole are worth ten times the bead on the pole to the right. This means that the first pole is the ones position, the next to the left is the tens position, and then hundreds and so forth. If one wished to use decimal places they chose a pole other than that of the far right as the ones position and then the poles to the right would be decimal places. When using a Chinese abacus one uses the thumb to slide a bead in the lower deck up and the index finger to slide it down. The middle finger is used to move beads in the upper deck. A number was counted when the bead was slide towards the middle beam. Thus a total of 9 could be counted with one upper bead and four lower beads(Fernandes, 2012). The second bead on the upper deck was used temporarily when dividing, allowing for up to fifteen on one pole (Dalakov, 2012). The abacus was not used for actual computation. The person doing the calculation used the abacus to keep track of figures while the whole calculation was done mentally (Fernandes, 2012).

The abacus was important in the development of digital computers and the history of the digital age. It was a necessary step on the path from counting with fingers to modern computers. This path was created because people needed to be able to count higher and higher numbers, and then compute more and more complex calculations. Before devices like the abacus, fingers were used for counting. This became a problem when people began to need to count over ten. They then began to use pebbles, sticks, or lines in the dirt to count. These items were difficult to transport, easy to knock over or scatter. Eventually someone came up with the abacus which was a relatively secure, portable solution. However, even the abacus was not perfect. There are many different types of them as people tried to improve its function. The suan-pan itself was eventually modified into a 1/4 abacus by the Japanese called the soroban. This simplified the abacus and removed some of the redundancy of the suan-pan such as the need for two upper beads. The short comings of abaci and its replacements inspired better devices that eventually lead to the digital computers of today. (Dalakov, 2012)

Works Cited

Dalakov, G. (2012, January 22). History of computers and computing, calculating tools, the abacus. Retrieved from http://history-computer.com/CalculatingTools/abacus.html

Fernandes, L. (2012, August 11). Abacus. Retrieved from http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/abacus/

Wiki Entry #2: William Higinbotham and Tennis for Two

William Higinbotham was born on October 25th, 1910. He earned his physics graduate degree from Cornell University. It was there that he learned all about electronics. His first job was at the university as a technician in the physics department. After that, he worked on radars at MIT in the Radiation Lab. Then he worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos which later led to his concerns on nuclear safety. In 1948 Higinbotham began working at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the Instrumentation Division. There he invented the first video game, Tennis for Two. He became the head of the department in 1951 and was the head of the department until he left the Laboratory in 1968 to work for Technical Support Organization where he worked on assisting the Atomic Energy Commission with technical advice on nuclear safeguards. Higinbotham died on November 10th, 1994 at the age of 84. ("The great idea," 2007; "Research and development," 2011)

While Higinbotham's work with nuclear safeguards was very important, he is most known for something completely different: inventing the first video game! It came about while he was working at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Every fall the BNL has visitor days where people can come see exhibits set up in the gymnasium or tour the lab. In 1958 he decided to present Tennis for Two. "I knew from past visitors days that people were not much interested in static exhibits," said Higinbotham, "so for that year. I came up with an idea for a hands-on display – a video tennis game." The game was hugely popular and was displayed again in 1959; however, after its second run the game was dismantled and its parts used for other projects. The game was never patented, or played outside of the lab. ("Research and development," 2011)

Tennis for Two was just that, a tennis game between two players. The game was programmed on an analog computer attached to an oscilloscope. It took three weeks to build. The screen showed a side view of the court with the floor and net visible. Each player had their own controller with a knob to control the angle of the ball and a button to hit the ball. If the ball hit the net it rebounded at an odd angle but if it made it over the net it bounced off the floor at a normal angle. There was a reset button which was to be pushed if the ball went off screen. ("Research and development," 2011)

While Tennis for Two was never commercially sold, it is the earliest known video game and considered by most to be the first. Thus it was the forerunner in an era of entertainment never seen before. Games began to exist in a virtual world where the only limitation was the game designers imagination. Interestingly, video games diverted from graphics such as the tennis court and were mainly text based for awhile before graphics were reintroduced. Tennis for Two at the very least showed that it was possible for the emerging computer to be used for entertainment and not only by the government and large businesses even if Higinbotham did not see that potential himself when he created it.

Works Cited

Research and development of the u.s. department of energy. (2011, January 21). Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/videogame.html

The great idea finder. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/higinbotham.htm

Wiki Entry #3: Hypertext

"Hypertext is text displayed on a computer or other electronic device with references (hyperlinks) to other text that the reader can immediately access, usually by a mouse click or keypress sequence." ("History of hypertext," 2012)

The idea of hypertext was inspired by Vannevar Bush's article "As We May Think" written in 1945, which described a futuristic device, a Memex, that was an extensive archive of microfilms. The Memex would have been able to store and index information, books, and documents so that the user could recall the information quickly. It introduced the idea of linking content together.("History of hypertext," 2012)

The term hypertext was coined by a man named Ted Nelson in 1963. Nelson became a film maker after he attended Swarthmore College in the 1950’s. He attended graduate school first at the University of Chicago in 1959 and then at Harvard in 1960. While attending Harvard University's graduate program, Nelson took a computer programming course. After this course he wanted to create a system that would organize and index his notes. Inspired by Vannevar's notion of linking content, he later popularized the idea of hypertext in his book "Literary Machines". In this book he described a system, a "docuverse," where all data was stored in one place and never deleted. This information could be accessed, through a link, from anywhere. Later, Nelson began Project Xanadu in 1967. It would potentially make it possible for anyone to reference anything as long as the reference came from the original source, solving copyright control problems. It has not been implemented successfully to date. ("Ted Nelson discovers," 2000)

Hypertext was first successfully implemented by Douglas Engelbart (the inventor of the computer mouse). His NLS (oNLine System) eased the creation of digital libraries and storage and retrieval of electron documents via hypertext. (Griffin) Other hypertext projects followed including NoteCards at Xerox PARC, ZOB at Carnegie Melon, The Interactive Encyclopedia System (TIES) at the University of Maryland, and Intermedia at Brown University. There were a few experimental hypertext systems in the 1980's but the first hypertext system successfully used on personal computers was Guide. ("History of hypertext," 2012)

In the 1980's Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, used hypertext to give structure to the internet, inventing the World Wide Web. This greatly improved the ease of using the internet to share information. Once the Web was invented internet browsers began to connect the Web to the internet. In 1992, Lynx began doing just that. Lynx was soon replaced by Mosaic in 1993 because it could link both graphics and texts. ("History of hypertext," 2012)

Hypertext was a very important step in the history of the digital age. Today most people do not even realize that the World Wide Web and the internet are two different things. We cannot imagine using the internet without the Web. Without hypertext the structure and use of the internet would be different from what we use today. It created a way to share and reference information in a practical way that almost anyone can use.

Works Cited

Griffin, S. (n.d.). Internet pioneers: Doug Engelbart. Retrieved from http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/englebart.html (Griffin)

History of hypertext. (2012, June 13). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hypertext ("History of hypertext," 2012)

Ted Nelson discovers hypertext. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_nelson.htm ("Ted Nelson discovers," 2000)

Wiki Article: The Patriot Act Changed the Security of Online Communication

The creation of the internet and the World Wide Web introduced a new way for people from anywhere in the world to communicate their ideas across the world in seconds. Mail and travel were no longer the best way to send information. Unfortunately this communication could also be used by those who wish the United States harm. Our government wrote the USA PATRIOT act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. Along with increasing airport security and assisting the families of the victims of the attack, the USA PATRIOT act increased the ways in which the government can monitor communication, with the stated intention of attempting to “Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. “ This act was passed on October 26th, 2001. Because the act passed so quickly, many sections of the Patriot act sunset in 2005. Some sections of the USA PATRIOT act are still in effect today and although some sections have sunset, they still set a precedent for future laws and generations to come; forever changing the security of online communication (Terrel, 2004).

The Patriot act was written to prevent terrorism. An important part of that defense is intelligence gathering. The government would rather catch terrorists before an attack than punish them after one. The USA PATRIOT act was not the first law to be passed with the intention of monitoring and preventing terrorism. Before the USA PATRIOT act, searches and surveillance of foreign entities were controlled by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (Terrel, 2004). The Foreign Intelligence Safety Act was introduced because of investigations, by Senate Committees, into the legality of domestic intelligence gathering. These investigations were fueled by the discovery that President Nixon was using federal resources to spy on political groups. FISA allowed law enforcement to conduct surveillance of foreign entities for the purpose of gathering intelligence information without a court order. This electronic surveillance must be authorized by the President. It can be in effect for up to one year if the surveillance is only on foreign powers and their agents. There must also only be a small chance that the contents of communication from an American citizen will be gathered. The Attorney General has to prove that the surveillance meets all of these requirements to FISA’s court and, if the court agrees, report it to the House and Senate. The government can receive a court order via the FISA court but it must provide the court with probable cause that the surveillance will only be of a foreign power. If an American citizen becomes involved, judicial authorization is required within 72 hours of the surveillance initiation ("The foreign intelligence," 2011). The USA PATRIOT act amended FISA. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT act changes who can be subpoenaed under FISA for business records. ISPs are now included. It also ensures immunity to the business for good faith disclosures of the information. Thirdly it does not limit the search to just records; any tangible thing can be accessed, including a computer server. Section 225 provides immunity to service providers for complying with FISA wiretaps. Both of these provisions protect service providers from civil liabilities (Plesser, 03/0). Although the USA PATRIOT act was written in response a terrorist attack and all provisions that amend FISA deal with foreign investigations, the Patriot act also changed some ways the government can conduct surveillance on American citizens.

A major concern people may have about government surveillance on the internet is whether or not the government can access the content of our communication or view what websites we visit and what we do on them. In general under the USA PATRIOT act if the government is allowed access to content it must be part of a criminal investigation. One section of the USA PATRIOT act that deals with content privacy is section 202, Interception of Voice Communications and Stored Voice Mail. Prior to the USA PATRIOT act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act dictated that both a search warrant and a wiretap order were required for the government to access stored email communications. Under the USA PATRIOT act, email communications can be accessed with only a search warrant (Terrel, 2004). A section that helps protect internet privacy is Section 202. This section helps service providers defend against hackers, denial of service attacks and other Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations by allowing the government to conduct surveillance (Plesser, 03/0). On the other hand, service providers can choose to help out criminal investigations by voluntarily disclosing private information about their customers, including email content (Terrel, 2004). However, Section 212 only allows for this disclosure to happen when the service provider believes that someone is in immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. The USA PATRIOT act, via section 222, also makes a point of saying that although service providers can help with criminal investigations they are not required to reconfigure their systems to store internet protocol traffic. Section 222 does not sunset (Plesser, 3/0). So although parts of the USA PATRIOT act did allow for more access to private internet communication, it is only allowed in a criminal investigation or an emergency. In addition to these provisions there are some sections that restrict law enforcement’s access to our content.

Certain types of surveillance are not intended to gain access to content, for example one way the government conducts surveillance is to obtain a pen register and a trap and trace order. The Patriot act defines a pen register as a “a device or process which records or decodes routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, provided, however, that such information shall not include the contents of any communication, but such term does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider or any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of its business.” A trap and trace device gathers incoming information. Often both of these devices are used and are simply called a pen register (Pen register, 2011). These orders originally gave law enforcement access to phone information but now, as of section 216 of the USA PATRIOT act, include routing information. Before the USA PATRIOT act, a pen register was required to be used for gathering information against a subject in a criminal investigation involving international terrorism or intelligence. Now the information gathered only needs to be relevant to a criminal investigation. The USA PATRIOT act says that the contents of communication are not included in the information that can be gathered by a pen register order. The routing information gathered also includes what websites were visited and what the user did on those websites. The police officer has to use discretion and ignore the content. Another issue with these orders is that when the ISP gives information of all the users of that ISP, not only the suspect. Again the police officer is expected to use discretion (Terrel, 2004). The USA PATRIOT act also allows courts to issue a pen register order for any jurisdiction. Law enforcement use "Carnivore" devices to gather the information from ISPs. Under the USA PATRIOT act, law enforcement must make reports to the court when they use these devices. Section 216 is one of the sections that does not have a sunset clause. Section 223 covers the government’s liability for disclosing information gained from wiretaps and stored data that are not a part of the investigation. This section prohibits civil lawsuits against the federal government as a whole but does not protect individual agents who inappropriately disclose information (Plesser, 03/0). Thus the USA PATRIOT act attempts to set clear guidelines for law enforcement. Because the technology used cannot separate the information needed from the content, they must use discretion with unrelated information gained from surveillance because there are consequences if this discretion is not used.

Although a pen register is a good way to gather information, it becomes ineffective if the target switches access points. Before the USA PATRIOT act, search warrants were required to specify exactly where the search would take place. For example a search warrant that covered a home did not also extend to the car. In relation to internet searches, the warrant had to specify which internet access point would be searched. When suspects began to intentionally switch access points to avoid detection, the law was amended to allow for roving wiretaps. Then in 1998, it changed again to allow roving wiretaps even if the evasion was unintentional. As of section 206 of the USA PATRIOT act, roving wiretaps became an acceptable surveillance method under FISA to gather intelligence. This means that the wiretaps are authorized secretly and there need not be any probable cause when investigating a foreign power or during a criminal investigation. One potential privacy issue that comes up is that the FBI may set up wiretaps on public computers because the suspect has used it. This means that innocent people’s information will be gathered. Again it is up to law enforcement to be discrete (Terrel, 2004).

Another aspect of the government gaining access to private information over the internet is how the government gains permission to access the information in the first place. For example, law enforcement can subpoena servers and force them to provide evidence. The USA PATRIOT act changed laws regarding subpoenas, allowing for more information to be gathered. Before section 210 of the USA PATRIOT act, a subpoena could only force the server to provide the customer’s name, address, length of service and method of payment and it could not compel them to provide any credit card numbers or bank account numbers of their customers. Now Section 210 does compel them to provide that information as well (Terrel, 2004). However, the credit card and bank account numbers must have been used to pay for communication services. It cannot be gathered from payment information temporarily stored on the system. This section does not sunset (Plesser, 03/0). This information is to help law enforcement identify a suspect since they can enter a fake name or address.

Another way the government can legally obtain private information is via a warrant. The USA PATRIOT act extended law enforcement’s abilities to get warrants. Normally, a search warrant can only be validated by a judge in the area where the search will occur. Under the USA PATRIOT act, warrants related to investigations of terrorism may be issued by any judge, anywhere. As stated earlier, in order to gain access to email, as of the USA PATRIOT act, only a search warrant is needed to obtain the email. Now that search warrants can be obtained from any judge, it is more difficult as the suspect to challenge the search since you would have to get a lawyer from the state the warrant was issued from (Terrel, 2004). Sections 219 and 220 cover some changes to warrant issuing procedure. Section 219 is the section that allows federal judges to issue these “nationwide search warrants for investigations involving domestic or international terrorism.” This section does not sunset. Section 220 allows a search warrant for stored data to be valid anywhere in the United States (Plesser, 03/0). One other type of warrant procedure that the USA PATRIOT act modified is called a sneak and peak warrant. A sneak and peek warrant is “one in which the government obtains a warrant and executes it without providing notice or providing a delayed notice to the target.” Usually law enforcement is legally required to provide notice to the target of the search before executing the warrant. There is an exception to this rule when law enforcement has reason to believe that someone, either the target himself or another person, will be harmed if the target is warned. As of Section 213, law enforcement only needs to show that giving the target notice of the search will jeopardize the investigation and they need not give it. Section 213 does not sunset (Terrel, 2004). Thus, email communication could potentially be read without the target’s knowledge if law enforcement feels that knowledge will jeopardize the investigation.

The USA PATRIOT act made one final change to a federal law that clarifies procedure in the case of a subpoena or a warrant being issued to a cable company. The Cable Act was passed in 1984 and it originally protected cable companies from having to disclose customer records even if law enforcement provided warrants or subpoenas. The company would often notify the customer that law enforcement had made the request for the information. A hearing would then be held in which the government had to give reason for gaining access to the records. Once cable companies began to provide internet service, this procedure applied to internet records as well. Section 211 removes this policy and there is no sunset provision for this section. Cable companies must disclose information in regard to internet services when issued a warrant or a subpoena by law enforcement (Terrel, 2004). This section cleared up a lot of confusion that came about when cable companies started providing internet service. Now they know how to react when law enforcement arrives with surveillance requests (Plesser, 03/0).

Although much of the Patriot act sunset in 2005, some sections are still in effect today. Section 224 listed the exceptions of the sunset. These exceptions still require service providers to provide bank and credit card numbers when subpoenaed, require cable companies to behave like other ISPs when issued subpoenas or warrants, allow pen registers to be used on internet traffic, allows nationwide warrants in terrorist investigations and does not require ISPs to store extra data in the event of a police investigation (Plesser, 03/0). These sections clearly still affect internet communication privacy but in a less obvious way, the other sections play their own part in the history of the digital age. Even though many of these sections are no longer valid, these laws may become reinstated in the future. As seen throughout the history of the digital age, ideas of the past can inspire norms of the future. If there were to be another terrorist attack, laws that proved useful from 2001 until 2005 may not sunset again. The Patriot act was an important stage in the development of government regulation of the internet. It addressed monitoring criminal activity online, which is important. We need our law enforcement to be able to investigate online as well as crime scenes but it is important that the privacy of individuals is also protected. As in a physical search, it is important that the police cannot just read our emails whenever they want. The Patriot act did attempt to protect the privacy of the individual without compromising the safety of all.

Works Cited

Pen register. (2011, December 17). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register

Plesser, R. (03/0). cyber.law.harvard.edu. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Presser article--redacted.htm


Terrel, E. (2004). Berkman center for internet & society. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Introduction to Module V.htm

The foreign intelligence surveillance act. (2011, November 17). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act