Most decryption is not done by methods used in war, but instead the NSA undermined cryptographic standards and then utilized the weaknesses they had implanted into the standards to decrypt the intercepted information. Aside from transmission interceptions, some information is taken directly from company servers. The first revelation was in June of 2013 when it was revealed that Verizon had given its database of all its calls to the United States government. However, this information was not taken unwittingly as Verizon had full knowledge of their decision. Many other companies knew that information was being taken, but had no choice in the matter as a secret court was assigning orders to reveal information without the use of a proper warrant.
Officials say that technology companies are making it increasingly difficult to get information even with a search warrant approved by a judge. They warn that the trend is thwarting investigations into terrorism, murder, drug dealing and other crimes. “Prior to 2014, a lot of the companies weren’t adversaries [to the government]. Then it became a business decision to be less friendly to law enforcement,’’ said Terry Cunningham, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. According to The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), “As amended, protects wire, oral, and electronic communications while those communications are being made, are in transit, and when they are stored on computers.
The FBI tried to unlock the phone many times but they were unsuccessful. The phone had a feature that deleted the data after so many attempts. The FBI was eventually able to unlock, but was the method used justified? I think the FBI did not exhaust their resources to find an alternative method. We would not want our privacy breached when were under investigation by any governmental official.
The CFAA has imprisoned many people, and many people want changes to the CFAA today. The CFAA was made to cover the majority of computer crimes. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was created because the United States Secret Service, and other government agencies needed a law to allow them to investigate cyber-crimes. The United States government also needed a way to discourage and stop people from hacking, accessing data, and many other internet crimes from a government computer. With computers on the rise, and the government converting to computers, the government needed a way to discourage and prosecute someone that damaged or gained access to the government’s information, and any other kind of computer.
The biggest problem with the Patriot Act is that it is not a black and white matter. It is gray in its simplest and truest form. Without it, who knows how many terrorists may have gotten inside our borders. Without the Patriot Act that allows the spying on millions of Americans by the government, who knows how many violent acts like 9/11 may have taken place. The argument about Internet privacy comes down to one point: How far are you willing to let the government go to keep you and your loved ones safe?
Those forensics researchers must develop new techniques for acquiring and analyzing data from the new devices that they encounter in their cases. Digital evidence is information stored or transited in digital form that may be used in court during an investigation. Different organizational entities have unique requirements for forensic results. WORK DONE IN THE PAST: The first computer crimes were recognized in the 1978 Florida Computer Crimes Act, which includes legislation against unauthorized modification or deletion of data on a computer syste... ... middle of paper ... ...s creators, and they know the key points to use technology against technology. • Currently few organizations have dominated digital crime forensic markets which have the tools and the solutions for cyber forensic investigation and are looking forward to train law enforcement agencies to use their tools and solutions to overcome digital and cyber-crimes.
Americans who care about their digital freedoms should also be asking tough questions about the government tapping into their devices. Digital privacy stands as an issue today and the issue should be constitutionally resolved, with different cases that support it. Privacy rights are embedded under the Fourth Amendment, which states that citizens are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. But the Patriot Act, which was passed after 9/11, allows the FBI to acquire telecommunication, financial, and credit records without a court order. Furthermore, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 allows Untied States private and public companies protection from being sued by their customers when they comply with illegal government surveillance requests.
Safety is a big concern among the American people, so if the government says they are doing something to protect them, people will believe it, even if the government is stretching the truth. The only thing that the constitution directly states about privacy is against unwarranted search and seizure, which kind of counters the Patriot’s Act. (#5) The patriot act does allow the NSA to search your laptop, phone, o... ... middle of paper ... ... something like that into the terms and conditions, But the concern for more privacy laws is approaching. A certain law may exist in the future that does not allow companies to put anything they want in the agreement. Most big corporations probably wouldn’t want to do that anyway, because people will not buy into it when the word spreads.
Since then, there has been a Congressional review of Carnivore. The FBI believes that Carnivore is well within the bounds of the law and that such a system is necessary to fight crime on the Internet. Advocates of privacy such as the ACLU believe that Carnivore violates Fourth Amendment rights and that the FBI cannot be trusted not to abuse Carnivore. In return, the FBI believes that the public should trust the FBI with electronic surveillance. Basically, the debate around Carnivore is the FBI versus everyone else.
However, there is no reason why the same process could not be used to reconstruct other user transactions such as instant messages, chat... ... middle of paper ... ... only methods of precaution available to network users if there is someone sniffing packets. Carnivore poses certain concerns to any network user concerned about their security. Unfortunately many of the issues are in the hands of the FBI and not the common civilian population of the United States, because it does not seem as though Carnivore will be forced to change. As a result, the only safeguard available to most people is encryption of any important information that is transmitted over a network. Public awareness of the issues involved, and the voicing of the concerns could prompt legislation to ensure that personal privacy is observed and respected by the FBI.