|
|
|
** 3. Ebenger, Tina. "The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private Email" (2004). Online. () Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL <Not Available>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In the aftermath
of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act was
enacted to enhance domestic security. One of the means to accomplish this
was to give law enforcement increased authority for the surveillance, interception,
and disclosure of private emails. The USA PATRIOT Act negated several of
the privacy protections afforded private email under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA).
While the USA PATRIOT Act
itself lessened the privacy protection of email, did this in reality occur?
Following up on an earlier study (2001) of email and privacy policies,
the communication privacy policies at three public Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), three educational institutions, and three private Internet Service
Providers (employers offering Internet access to their employees) were
re-examined and the organizations re-interviewed
to determine if the privacy
of email since September 11, 2001 and the passage of the USA PATRIOT
Act has, in actuality, been
lessened under the law. Surprisingly, only one of the policies was changed,
that of a public ISP. It is believed that the lack of change is due to
several factors, such as uncertainty regarding the definition of an Internet
Service Provider to the public, circumstances which did not necessitate
a change, and extraneous issues affecting libraries.
** 5. Cowles, Maria Green. "Privacy, Security, and Hegemony in Cyberspace: The Transatlantic Public-Private Debate over the USA Patriot Act" (2004). Online. () Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, , Montreal <Not Available>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: ISA 2004 Paper
Proposal: Privacy, Security, and Hegemony in Cyberspace: The
Transatlantic Public-Private
Debate over the USA Patriot Act Maria Green Cowles In the aftermath
of September 11th, the United
States Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, thus providing the
government with broad new
powers of surveillance, especially regarding the internet. The Patriot
Act
raises a number of red flags
for privacy advocates who argue that it challenges the civil liberties
of
ordinary Americans, and
in particular, their right to privacy in on-line communications and activities.
Yet, while American scholars
and practitioners focus on the Patriot Act's impact on U.S. citizens,
very little attention has
been paid to its influence on the privacy rights of individuals elsewhere
in the
world. Perhaps nowhere is
the Patriot Act's import more apparent than in the European Union (EU).
The EU's 1995 Data Privacy
Directive is among the strictest privacy acts worldwide through its
limits on the electronic
data that can be collected and stored on European citizens. Due to the
internet's trans-sovereign
nature, the EU Data Privacy Directive has an extra-territorial impact on
American companies who traditionally
gather data on customers for marketing and operational
purposes. American airline
companies with transatlantic routes, for example, were forced to alter
their data collection practices
-- or face stiff legal action -- as they infringed on the data privacy
rights of European passengers.
By the 1990s, a major row emerged between the United States and
European Union over the
EU's Data Privacy Directive and its impact on American internet and
e-commerce operations. A
resolution was reached when the EU and the U.S. Department of
Commerce agreed to the Safe
Harbor Provisions for companies operating in the transatlantic
marketplace. Since the passage
of the Patriot Act, the EU Data Privacy Directive -- and thus,
European citizens' privacy
rights -- have been pushed aside. Transatlantic intergovernmental
cooperation in the war against
terrorism has resulted in new surveillance measures on European
citizens, and new data collection
and sharing requirements placed on European companies. The
situation is confusing because
unlike the Patriot Act in the United States, there has been no formal
change to the EU Data Privacy
Directive since September 11th. Thus, private actors find themselves
caught between the existing
data privacy requirements and the new security demands. The proposed
ISA paper will thus examine
the influence of the Patriot Act on EU data privacy and the rights of
European citizens. The paper
will analyze why the European Union and its member states have
altered, albeit unofficially,
their strict privacy requirements; how the US government was and is able
to influence this development;
and why European companies and privacy advocates have had limited
success in challenging the
Patriot Act's impact. In doing so, the paper addresses the conference
theme – Hegemony and its
discontents – by analyzing how September 11th alters the relationship of
politics vs. economics,
public vs. private governance, and security vs. privacy on an international
scale.
Primary Author email: cowles00@erols.com
1. Colucci, Frank. "From Privacy to
Liberty: Justice Kennedy's Interpretive Turn in Lawrence v. Texas" (2004).
Online. (28) Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the New England Political Science Association,
Sheraton Harborside Hotel and Conference Center, Portsmouth,
ME <.PDF>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Justice Anthony
Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Lawrence v. Texas was
groundbreaking not only
for overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, but also for the method of
constitutional interpretation
used to justify that result. This opinion explicitly rejects originalism,
but it
does not adopt the analysis
based on the right to privacy as argued in Justice Blackmun’s dissent in
Bowers. Instead, Kennedy
relies on an expansive definition of liberty that substantially differs
in
foundations and results
from the right to privacy articulated in Griswold and Roe.
This paper tracks Kennedy’s
development of this alternative approach to constitutional
interpretation. Part One
chronicles statements made by Kennedy prior to his appointment to the
Court. At that time, he
rejected the terminology of the right to privacy but—unlike originalists—he
defended a judicial duty
to enforce the full and necessary meaning of liberty. Part Two focuses
on
Kennedy’s effort in Lawrence
to articulate and develop this liberty-based approach in place of the
right to privacy. Part Three
surveys the objections to Kennedy’s approach articulated in Justice
Scalia’s dissent, and examines
how both opinions challenge the approach of the New Deal and
Warren Courts. The paper
concludes by situating Lawrence within Kennedy’s larger effort to
construct a careful, reasoned
balance to constitutional interpretation that seeks to avoid the excesses
of both the Warren Court
and the originalist reaction.
Primary Author email: coluccif@calumet.purdue.edu
2. Collins, Brian. "At the Crossroads of Privacy and Preparation: Bioterrorism and State Immunization Registries" (2004). Online. (9) Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL <.PDF>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper examines
state-level immunization registries as a dual-use public health
infrastructure that can
improve preparedness along the fourth and fifth dimensions as defined above.
State immunization registries
are atabases that maintain immunization records of children to help
public health officials,
health providers, and parents make decisions about when and what
immunizations should be
obtained. This paper reports the results from a survey of state immunization
directors that suggest extant
registries can be useful tools in bioterrorism preparedness. These
experts are more likely
to express confidence in state registries as dual-use technologies if they
data
entry is based upon
implied consent, however.
The problem is that more effective registries may be challenged on
privacy grounds. Therefore,
state officials must balance the importance of exploiting potential
synergies with privacy concerns.
3. Krueger, Brian. "Privacy,
Surveillance, and Mass Political Participation" (2004).
Online. () Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political
Science Association, Portland Marriott Hotel, Portland, OR <Not Available>.
2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Primary Author email: bkrueger@uri.edu
4. Winston, Thomas. "The Post-9/11 International Governance and Policy Dichotomy between State-Sponsored, Terror-Induced Security Measures and the Need for Free Speech and Privacy on the Internet" (2004). Online. (21) Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, , Montreal <.PDF>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The events of
9/11 have induced a worldwide paradigm shift. This shift has affected many
aspects of life both here
in North America and abroad. The United States drafted the Patriot Act,
which provisioned for far-reaching
security measures. Some of these measures challenge the
constitutional rights of
every American citizen. Yet there is clearly a need for enhanced security
measures both domestically
and internationally. Whereas it is unclear whether or not the Patriot Act
and the potentially forthcoming
Patriot II Act will improve security for citizens both in the US and
abroad, it is clear that
these acts will affect the lives of common citizens worldwide. Since 99%
of
the Internet is bound neither
by geo-political borders nor by geographic distances, the Patriot Act
will have a unique affect
on Internet usage worldwide. One of the broad-sweeping measures of the
Patriot Act allows the United
States to monitor all Internet traffic and voice traffic in search of
terrorist data. This paper
will explore how the need to protect a nation's citizens with enhanced
security measures is balanced
against the rights of those citizens to privacy and free speech. The
paper will focus on the
EU and United States and the measures they are taking to 'protect' their
citizens. I will close the
paper with a discussion about the issues that governments will face over
the
next 5 years in balancing
security, privacy and free-speech on the Internet.
Primary Author email: twinston@endicott.edu
6. Smith, Daniel. "From Privacy to Autonomy: Lawrence v. Texas and the Evolution of Fourteenth Amendment Liberty Doctrine" (2004). Online. () Paper presented at the annual meeting of the South Western Political Science Association, , Corpus Christi, Texas <Not Available>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer
Reviewed
1. Sanders, Robert. "Treatment
of International Students at American Universities in the Era of the Patriot
Act"
(2004). Online.
() Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Palmer
House Hilton, Chicago, IL <Not Available>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
2. Cowles, Maria Green. "Privacy, Security, and Hegemony in Cyberspace: The Transatlantic Public-Private Debate over the USA Patriot Act" (2004). Online. () Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, , Montreal <Not Available>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: ISA 2004 Paper
Proposal: Privacy, Security, and Hegemony in Cyberspace: The
Transatlantic Public-Private
Debate over the USA Patriot Act Maria Green Cowles In the
aftermath of September 11th,
the United States Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, thus
providing the government
with broad new powers of surveillance, especially regarding the internet.
The Patriot Act raises a
number of red flags for privacy advocates who argue that it challenges
the
civil liberties of ordinary
Americans, and in particular, their right to privacy in on-line
communications and activities.
Yet, while American scholars and practitioners focus on the Patriot
Act's impact on U.S. citizens,
very little attention has been paid to its influence on the privacy rights
of individuals elsewhere
in the world. Perhaps nowhere is the Patriot Act's import more apparent
than in the European Union
(EU). The EU's 1995 Data Privacy Directive is among the strictest
privacy acts worldwide through
its limits on the electronic data that can be collected and stored on
European citizens. Due to
the internet's trans-sovereign nature, the EU Data Privacy Directive has
an extra-territorial impact
on American companies who traditionally gather data on customers for
marketing and operational
purposes. American airline companies with transatlantic routes, for
example, were forced to
alter their data collection practices -- or face stiff legal action --
as they
infringed on the data privacy
rights of European passengers. By the 1990s, a major row emerged
between the United States
and European Union over the EU's Data Privacy Directive and its
impact on American internet
and e-commerce operations. A resolution was reached when the EU
and the U.S. Department
of Commerce agreed to the Safe Harbor Provisions for companies
operating in the transatlantic
marketplace. Since the passage of the Patriot Act, the EU Data
Privacy Directive -- and
thus, European citizens' privacy rights -- have been pushed aside.
Transatlantic intergovernmental
cooperation in the war against terrorism has resulted in new
surveillance measures on
European citizens, and new data collection and sharing requirements
placed on European companies.
The situation is confusing because unlike the Patriot Act in the
United States, there has
been no formal change to the EU Data Privacy Directive since September
11th. Thus, private actors
find themselves caught between the existing data privacy requirements
and the new security demands.
The proposed ISA paper will thus examine the influence of the
Patriot Act on EU data privacy
and the rights of European citizens. The paper will analyze why the
European Union and its member
states have altered, albeit unofficially, their strict privacy
requirements; how the US
government was and is able to influence this development; and why
European companies and privacy
advocates have had limited success in challenging the Patriot
Act's impact. In doing so,
the paper addresses the conference theme – Hegemony and its
discontents – by analyzing
how September 11th alters the relationship of politics vs. economics,
public vs. private governance,
and security vs. privacy on an international scale.
Primary Author email: cowles00@erols.com
3. Ebenger, Tina. "The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private Email" (2004). Online. () Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL <Not Available>. 2004-06-18
Publication Type: Conference
Proceeding
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In the aftermath
of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act was
enacted to enhance domestic security. One of the means to accomplish this
was to give law enforcement increased authority for the surveillance, interception,
and disclosure of private emails. The USA PATRIOT Act negated several of
the privacy protections afforded private email under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA).
While the USA PATRIOT Act
itself lessened the privacy protection of email, did this in reality occur?
Following up on an earlier study (2001) of email and privacy policies,
the communication privacy policies at three public Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), three educational institutions, and three private Internet Service
Providers (employers offering Internet access to their employees) were
re-examined and the organizations re-interviewed
to determine if the privacy
of email since September 11, 2001 and the passage of the USA PATRIOT
Act has, in actuality, been
lessened under the law. Surprisingly, only one of the policies was changed,
that of a public ISP. It is believed that the lack of change is due to
several factors, such as uncertainty regarding the definition of an Internet
Service Provider to the public, circumstances which did not necessitate
a change, and extraneous issues affecting libraries.