Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law
Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law
FBI’s Carnivore: Is the GovernmentEating Away Our Right of Privacy?INTRODUCTIONWith the birth of the Internet has come a virtual reformationof how human society communicates. The exact number ofInternet users is nearly incalculable, but recent assessmentsestimate that nearly 300 million people worldwide are currentlyonline.1 These users can travel relatively freely among themillions of currently active Internet sites.2 The growth of thiscommunications medium in the last decade has been tremendous,and promises to continue at such a pace. The United StatesDepartment of Commerce has reported that less than 40 millionpeople worldwide had access to the Internet in 1996.3 Thisnumber jumped to more than 100 million people by the end of1997.4 Further research by the Department has indicated thatthe number of people and businesses using the Internet doublesevery 100 days.5 Thus, the Internet presents unprecedentedopportunities for global communications and commerce. However,it also poses dramatic risks to personal privacy. Every dayAmericans use the Internet to access and transfer vast amounts ofprivate data. From electronic mail and business transactions toshopping habits, web surfing profiles can reveal detailedblueprints of how people live.6 As more of our lives are conducted1. See Gavin Skok, Establishing a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy inClickstream Data, 6 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 61, 63 (1999).2. See id.3. See Thomas T. Reith III, Consumer Confidence: The Key To Successful E-Commerce In The Global Marketplace, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 467, 486 n.3(2001).4. See id.5. See id.6. See Carnivore’s Challenge to Privacy and Security Online: Hearings onCarnivore Before the House Judiciary Subcomm. on the Constitution, 106th Cong.(2000) [hereinafter Carnivore’s Challenge] (statement of Alan B. Davidson, Staff237
online and more personal information is transmitted and storedelectronically, the result has been a massive increase in theamount of sensitive data available to interested third parties,including the government.7 The question thus presented iswhether our government has taken advantage of this availability.Although not conclusive, some evidence suggests that theutilization of electronic surveillance for monitoring criminalactivity has practically exploded over the past decade, arguablyreplacing more traditional investigatory tools.8 Current dataindicates that this pace is unlikely to diminish. The FBI aloneestimates that over the next decade, given planned improvementsin the digital collection and analysis of communications, itsrequests for electronic surveillance orders will increase 300percent.9 It appears that these planned improvements, as well asadditional surveillance requests, may well be underway.During Congressional hearings in April, 2000, Robert Corn-Revere, an Internet and communications lawyer in Washington,D.C., first divulged evidence of the existence of “Carnivore,” anelectronic surveillance device developed by the FBI.10 Respondingto concerns from various privacy groups and others, formerAttorney General Janet Reno ordered that an independenttechnical review of the system be completed by December 8, 2000,in order to substantiate Carnivore’s compliance with bothconstitutional provisions and federal statutory wiretap laws.11The review, completed by the IIT Research Institute (IITRI), adivision of the Illinois Institute of Technology, essentially foundthe system to be legally compliant and determined most concernsover invasion of individual privacy were unsupported.12Despite winning a favorable review by the university, theCarnivore device continues to raise strong concerns about privacyCounsel, Center for Democracy and Technology).7. See id.8. See id.9. See id.10. See John Hall, Privacy Beginning To Be A Top Issue, Rich. Times Dispatch,July 16, 2000, at F2.11. See Frank James, U.S. Seeks University Experts to Review FBI’s E-MailProbes, Chi. Trib., Aug. 25, 2000, at N20.12. See Institute’s Report on Carnivore Causes Uproar Among Critics, 4 Telecomm.Indus. Litig.Rep. 12 (2000).
- Page 208 and 209: powers going well beyond the UNIDRO
- Page 210 and 211: Contracts deals with unfair terms i
- Page 212 and 213: worth a thousand words. Picture a d
- Page 214 and 215: types of provisions being sought by
- Page 216 and 217: law is a complex one.125 Although s
- Page 218 and 219: the intellectual property balance o
- Page 220 and 221: Other Substantive IssuesThere are,
- Page 222 and 223: law,153 and many of UCITA’s provi
- Page 224 and 225: nature of law-making both domestica
- Page 226 and 227: Transactions Act).
- Page 228 and 229: acts of copyright infringement.7 Un
- Page 230 and 231: these rights.I. ISP LIABILITY FOR T
- Page 232 and 233: Cubby, the court in Stratton Oakmon
- Page 234 and 235: liability for third-party content.5
- Page 236 and 237: network and removed the edition of
- Page 238 and 239: subscribers’ conversations.84 Fur
- Page 240 and 241: holder.92 Contributory liability ap
- Page 242 and 243: and Klemesrud on the counts of dire
- Page 244 and 245: eport, the White Paper on Intellect
- Page 246 and 247: imposed ISP liability both in insta
- Page 248 and 249: any infringing material either upon
- Page 250 and 251: provider liability, the European Co
- Page 252 and 253: of a defamatory statement.While saf
- Page 254 and 255: defamation.184 One case that illust
- Page 256 and 257: material that appears questionable
- Page 260 and 261: and the legal limits of government
- Page 262 and 263: II. CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSISA. Const
- Page 264 and 265: application developed in Katz v. Un
- Page 266 and 267: Amendment protections.50Substantial
- Page 268 and 269: communicating over the Internet pos
- Page 270 and 271: court will likely, as it has often
- Page 272 and 273: unconstitutional.81 Although CALEA
- Page 274 and 275: data attributable to the target sus
- Page 276 and 277: FBI facility for subsequent examina
- Page 278 and 279: EPCA Section 2518 provides that upo
- Page 280 and 281: The FBI has stated that its use of
- Page 282 and 283: provision,143 but judging from the
online and more personal information is transmitted and storedelectronically, the result has been a massive increase in theamount <strong>of</strong> sensitive data available to interested third parties,including the government.7 The question thus presented iswhether our government has taken advantage <strong>of</strong> this availability.Although not conclusive, some evidence suggests that theutilization <strong>of</strong> electronic surveillance for monitoring criminalactivity has practically exploded over the past decade, arguablyreplacing more traditional investigatory tools.8 Current dataindicates that this pace is unlikely to diminish. The FBI aloneestimates that over the next decade, given planned improvementsin the digital collection and analysis <strong>of</strong> communications, itsrequests for electronic surveillance orders will increase 300percent.9 It appears that these planned improvements, as well asadditional surveillance requests, may well be underway.During Congressional hearings in April, 2000, Robert Corn-Revere, an Internet and communications lawyer in Washington,D.C., first divulged evidence <strong>of</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> “Carnivore,” anelectronic surveillance device developed by the FBI.10 Respondingto concerns from various privacy groups and others, formerAttorney General Janet Reno ordered that an independenttechnical review <strong>of</strong> the system be completed by December 8, 2000,in order to substantiate Carnivore’s compliance with bothconstitutional provisions and federal statutory wiretap laws.11The review, completed by the IIT Research Institute (IITRI), adivision <strong>of</strong> the Illinois Institute <strong>of</strong> Technology, essentially foundthe system to be legally compliant and determined most concernsover invasion <strong>of</strong> individual privacy were unsupported.12Despite winning a favorable review by the university, theCarnivore device continues to raise strong concerns about privacyCounsel, Center for Democracy and Technology).7. See id.8. See id.9. See id.10. See John Hall, Privacy Beginning To Be A Top Issue, Rich. Times Dispatch,July 16, 2000, at F2.11. See Frank James, U.S. Seeks <strong>University</strong> Experts to Review FBI’s E-MailProbes, Chi. Trib., Aug. 25, 2000, at N20.12. See Institute’s Report on Carnivore Causes Uproar Among Critics, 4 Telecomm.Indus. Litig.Rep. 12 (2000).
Change language