The European approach to computer search throws civil liberties out the window and invites police to install malware on suspects' computers with no outside controls.
I usually find myself mostly on the side of the police in arguments with
civil libertarians with respect to Internet monitoring of criminal activity.
Opponents often go over the top, denying any legitimacy to police efforts. But
now the European Union and the British Home Office are the ones losing all
respect for the other side of the issue.
The UK Home
Office has signed up with an EU policy that encourages police to hack into
personal computers. The policy does not require a court warrant for the
intrusion. The Home Office says that its agreement with the EU is not legally
binding. It also says that it does a small number of such operations under
British law, the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which allows surveillance to
"prevent or detect serious crime."
police hacking in the United States in an earlier column. The law on this
in the United States
is not especially clear, but it appears to be far more protective of individual
rights than in Europe. True, here in the United States
we have a "warrantless wiretapping" program instituted by the Bush
administration and voted for last year by then-Sen. Obama, but it applies to
international telecommunications, not to the search of assets in private hands
in the United States.
The European policy is shockingly uninterested in individual rights: The
police can hack into private computers either by sending an e-mail containing a
virus to the suspect's computer or by breaking into a residence to install a
keylogger onto a machine or simply placing a surveillance van in the vicinity
of a wireless network to intercept the traffic. Computers of users who are
suspected of terrorism, pedophilia, or identity or credit card theft will be
Perhaps even more shocking, or at least I found it so: The policy encourages
police to conduct such searches across borders. So the Belgians could search a
private computer in England,
although it appears they would have to have the English authorities install the
standard for such an operation, according to The Sunday Times, is that "...
a senior officer says he 'believes' that it is 'proportionate' and necessary to
prevent or detect serious crime-defined as any offence attracting a jail
sentence of more than three years."
The BBC quotes
Professor Peter Sommer, a cyber-crime expert at the London School of Economics,
pointing out that evidence gathered through such hacking can face admissibility
problems in court. Normally great care is taken to preserve the "chain of
custody" of evidence to show that it has not been tampered with. The
controls that establish this are absent on the user's computer, where the user,
or perhaps some other hacker, could gain access to it.
Larry Seltzer has been writing software for and English about computers ever since,much to his own amazement,he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1983.
He was one of the authors of NPL and NPL-R, fourth-generation languages for microcomputers by the now-defunct DeskTop Software Corporation. (Larry is sad to find absolutely no hits on any of these +products on Google.) His work at Desktop Software included programming the UCSD p-System, a virtual machine-based operating system with portable binaries that pre-dated Java by more than 10 years.
For several years, he wrote corporate software for Mathematica Policy Research (they're still in business!) and Chase Econometrics (not so lucky) before being forcibly thrown into the consulting market. He bummed around the Philadelphia consulting and contract-programming scenes for a year or two before taking a job at NSTL (National Software Testing Labs) developing product tests and managing contract testing for the computer industry, governments and publication.
In 1991 Larry moved to Massachusetts to become Technical Director of PC Week Labs (now eWeek Labs). He moved within Ziff Davis to New York in 1994 to run testing at Windows Sources. In 1995, he became Technical Director for Internet product testing at PC Magazine and stayed there till 1998.
Since then, he has been writing for numerous other publications, including Fortune Small Business, Windows 2000 Magazine (now Windows and .NET Magazine), ZDNet and Sam Whitmore's Media Survey.