Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Monday, November 24, 2003
)esn’t$el
Big brother is watching
ENT
' Rent. Dr®
r, $30/r
l-ocal,
:om
ALE
lor the till
iail.com
19 row 351
Oea.obo,r;I
Spyware a good tool to fight terrorism
one tickets
$300080
Ctioii 236
e7W7k
it tu Wet-
line. Sear
■541-7955
12, no ste
■ents. S»:
u. gameii
5.
ame. Stow
Andrea K
$50eatr
346-7072.
Sec 501 to
324-932
ne. SecM!
i OBO. W,
14-0003.
r, game,
line, $5fe
1,979-7759!
:e condo, ft
713*
side,
Toolbox.®
rranty.Ven;
X). 979-5J"'
jlordpmt^
njr cuire'il
Condos i'-i
ege.com
ises $75a
sale, I
mifer i
,M vs, b?
lassie i® 1
5". Motif*
ristmas 1
2800 P* ?
eo,l
juse, » wl
■1632
for sal*
■ and ind' 1 ’'
122-9905 1
Ihe conveniences of technological evolution have definitely come at a cost to
Internet users. They are now asked to take more precautions than ever when
connected to the Web. Along with being subject to the growing threat of
cyber crime, privacy invasion by advertisers is also a real and prevalent issue.
Spyware encompasses any program that can be downloaded on a user’s comput
er, retrieve personal information about the user with or without their knowledge and
send it to a third party. Most often used by advertisers craving marketing data, pro
grams such as these have received rather dishonorable stereotypes
as they are often responsible for the annoying pop-ups, system
malfunctions and simply intruding on individuals’ privacy.
But spyware tactics have also been used against the pub
lic by federal agencies as a means of security and surveillance, which has
brought into light the issue regarding government intrusion of civil liberties.
While Americans should never have to go out of their ways to protect their per
sonal information for any capitalistic motif, a different scenario exists in the
federal arena.
Immediately following the events of 9-11, the Patriot Act was approved by
Congress, granting FBI agents greater freedom to eavesdrop on Internet activity
without a court order. A more recent proposal known as the Domestic
Security Enhancement Act has further sparked the issue of individual
liberties versus government regulation.
One can imagine a highway free of law enforcement. However
utopian this may sound for some, this situation would obviously be a
chaotic and destructive one. In an effort to bring order to a situation
like this, society as a whole grants law enforcement a certain amount
of power in exchange for safety. The Internet highways represent an
analogous scenario, but different in one important respect.
Authorities on the Internet cannot be effective by simply monitor-
basic day-to-day activities, as highway patrolmen do. Their
techniques must be deceptive, intelligent processes that do spy on
people.
Many civil rights activists protest government “snooping”
activities such as those associated with spyware, claiming a viola
tion of privacy and in turn an unconstitutional practice. While the
privacy issue has been hotly debated in political arenas many
times over, the issue here must be approached in a different man
ner. Technological criminals and terrorists often have access to the
same high-tech resources as their nemeses. In a report on spyware
in the Technology Review Journal, Osama bin Laden’s team
reportedly used the tactic of hiding one type of data file within
another. Essentially, a text file with attack plans can be hidden in a
photo of Britney Spears. Situations like these make the need for
advanced counter-terrorism technology more than apparent.
The government increased online surveillance as it implemented
technologies such as Carnivore and Echelon. Carnivore was responsi-
for tracking down terrorist activities and detaining 400-500 sus-
DAVID
SHACKELFORD
pects immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center in
)1. Despite the programs’ occasional flaws in mistaking implicating
innocent person, it is still better to exhaust all possibilities than to
miss one.
The writers of the Constitution probably did not foresee a land full of
machines that can send messages from coast to coast in seconds. Nor did
idea of foreign terrorists wreaking havoc on the soon-to-be-built cities
and civilizations ever cross Ben Franklin’s mind. Post-9-11 America is a whole new scenario.
It is true that not every seemingly logical response to terrorism is a reasonable solution that should
be enacted. However, at a time when national security should operate to its fullest capacity, people
will have to sacrifice for a greater cause. This is not to say people should assume and invest all
authority and credibility in federal agencies, for they have been deceptive and shady at times. But the
uncertainty of a federal agency in collecting online user information is a far better circumstance than
t of the certain intentions of a terrorist being unleashed.
Spyware and other surveillance tactics are a vital contribution to America’s security and well
being. These security services do come at a cost, however. But this cost is a relatively small one when
one contemplates the potential security benefits that spyware and its counterparts offer people.
America has a long way to go in combating foreign and domestic terrorists. But only with a
more centralized intelligence community working in sync with better technology can real homeland
security be established. Spyware can perhaps be seen as a prototype of the new security measures
that are necessary today.
Use of spyware violates right to privacy
I nternet users are having to learn more ways to secure their systems as more
ways to breach them are being created. Spyware is one of the latest of these
creations and has recently earned itself a place among the most irritating of
security breaches. Spyware refers to any programs used to monitor activity and
gather user information. As the name implies, these programs perform their func
tions without users’ knowledge.
Though spyware is better known for its commercial use, the government has
recognized it as a tool to facilitate one of the greatest eavesdropping campaigns
yet undertaken. Once again the war against terror is being waged at the expense
of Americans’ right to privacy.
The majority of spyware’s publicity refers to its use by corporate advertisers to
collect marketing data. It gets onto a PC most commonly by “piggyback
ing” on other programs users download from the Internet. Once installed,
it begins gathering information from Web activity to key strokes.
Cydoor is a prime example. This program is tagged onto KaZaa and is
of the type of spyware companies prefer to call “adware.”
Operating undetected, spyware has the ability to capture any informa
tion keyed into an online form, including Social Security numbers, credit
card numbers and passwords. Spyware can be dealt with by employing one
of a growing number of detection and removal utilities. This has to be done
periodically as long as downloading continues. As long as spyware is
left to accumulate, it takes up space on the hard drive and slows
down a computer.
Though companies whose programs include spyware are
required to notify users, the nature of their purpose calls for
deception. According to cexx.org, spyware enters computers
and collects information in a deceiving manner. Also, compa
nies use slick spyware and legal teams that can bury spyware’s
usage in a license agreement.
Growing concern about these deceptive tactics has prompt
ed work on the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act.
Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., intends for the bill to require clear
notice of spyware in license agreements. Users would be noti
fied of the presence and precise use of a spyware program
before they download. However, this refreshing bill is only tailored
to address companies.
While many are looking forward to when the current use of
these programs is classified as a federal offense, the FBI and CIA
are using their own forms of spyware to snoop in the name of
national security. The FBI-developed Carnivore tracks e-mail,
instant messages and Web search trails and relays information to
a centralized database. The FBI maintains that Carnivore can only
be installed after obtaining an appropriate court order. The court
makes certain that only specified target information will be intercept
ed and copied.
This doesn’t always happen, however.
According to a Federal Computer Week article, an internal
FBI memo sent in April 2000 said “Carnivore intercepted so
much unrelated e-mail during its investigation of Osama Bin
Laden that the FBI stopped using it and may have destroyed
mahesh neelakantan • the battalion information it collected related to the terrorists.”
No one should expect an investigation of such massive proportions
conducted on such untamed terrain to be painless. Many Americans agree that some sacrifice of
privacy is necessary to pursue terrorists hiding among the general population. But until govern
ment spyware proves dependable, Americans must ask themselves if the compromise is worth it.
The FBI and CIA, under the guise of the Total Information Awareness Office, have overwhelm
ing power to conduct mass surveillance. All record of personal information and Internet activity is
within their grasp. Perhaps not ironically, this capability is being exercised under an administration
that has one of the worst reputations for withholding government information.
If Americans stand down and allow this one-way trend to continue, the implications for future
invasions of privacy are enormous.
Fighting terrorism is a formidable task and worthy of utmost priority. National security is at the
forefront of American consciousness. A sense of security must, however, be weighed against those
fundamental principles that ensure civil liberties. If those principles are neglected, even if govern
ment spyware does succeed, the United States may end up a secure nation with an insecure people.
Chris Lively is a senior
sociology major.
David Shackelford is a senior
journalism major.
ours, i 101 1;|
Demonstration a venue
to exchange ideas
In response to Nov. 20 mail call:
;ee on'
ily %
Ihesa 1 *'.
iiewas!
can
teal'"'''
nW*,
lollo#.
ids in ^
a. Ga^
>4 oi ^
8o# !
17^
it Pal'
ICS#
Adi#.
✓
Expressing “disgust” for Young
Conservatives of Texas’ anti-diversity
protest is a clear indication that Mr.
Foster completely misunderstood its
intention. The protest was not an
attack on any one individual or group,
but rather a venue for the exchange of
ideas. Implying that we make Aggies
look ignorant and hateful couldn’t be
further from the truth.
In fact, if one had taken the time to
attend the protest and listen to some of
the discussions, they would know that
it was productive as well as education
al. I personally had some great con
versations with a few of the guys from
Beta Xi Chi (a multicultural fraternity).
found that we share more common
ground than I anticipated and that they
helped me to better understand their
points of view.
Mr. Foster’s feelings of embarrass
ment, or that our campus is unfriendly
to anyone, are his own and are not the
consensus at Texas A&M.
Aaron Dunn
Class of 2003
They exist or do not exist because of
the students.” How can you say that
traditions such as Aggie Bonfire do not
exist because of the students? These
traditions take place on the A&M cam
pus, therefore the University should
take responsibility for the activities that
occur. If dangerous things were hap
pening during these activities, such as
consumption of alcohol, that is the
University’s fault for not providing rules
and regulations for these events and
not enforcing existing ones. It is the for
mer president’s fault for taking away
these traditions, not the students.
How are we as students supposed
to keep the Aggie Spirit alive when
figure heads such as yourself keep
taking traditions along with their spir
it away? To conclude, we should not
have to ask ourselves as students
what we are going to do to keep the
spirit alive. You and other leaders of
this University should ask yourselves
what can you do or stop doing to
keep the spirit alive. The responsibil
ity rests on your shoulders.
Jourdan Newman
Class of 2006
Justice system must be
ruled by moral men
side ^
lSt°C
University officials
hurting Aggie Spirit
In response to a Nov. 20 mail call:
^pPS''
Mr. Kibler wrote, ‘Texas A&M did not
create Aggie Spirit of Aggie traditions.
In response to a Nov. 21 mail call:
There has been quite a hysteria
over the recent removal of Judge
Moore from the Alabama Supreme
Court. It is obvious that Judge Moore
was in defiance of the established
order, and according to principles of
MAIL CALL
law, should be removed from his
position for his actions. But take a
look at the bigger picture. Moral
debasement from the law nullifies
the law’s function.
Founding fathers Jefferson and
Franklin (unacclaimed “Christian”
men, more to the tune of atheist and
agnostic) stated that the
Constitution and its justice system
would only endure if it remained in
the hands of moral men. To advocate
justice without morality is to pro
duce a failure within the system.
Rome, France and other empires
systematically removed morality
from their justice system until noth
ing was left but law, and broken
empires. Can we “legally” throw
men like former Judge Moore from
the courts for advocating morality in
law? Sure we can, but we’re
encroaching into an experiment of
dissenting justice without ethics —
and 30, 40 or 50 years from now we
may find ourselves in an extremely
difficult position from which to rule.
Joseph Couch
Class of 2003
Withdrawing petition
the right thing to do
In response to a Nov. 21 article:
My attempted recall of Sen. Dustin
Teems did not “fail” in the sense that
the student body found it to be base
less, but rather I chose to withdraw it
because it was the right thing to do.
At the time I initiated the recall, it
was because I felt that Sen. Teems
was not acting in the best interests of
his constituents due to his com
ments in opposition to the Open
Access to Budget bill. However, Sen.
Teems and others were under the
impression that a University rule
restricting access to the SGA budget
existed. I would not have attempted
a recall had the SGA leadership
acted with due diligence and not told
the student body that such a rule
existed, when in fact there was no
such rule.
When it became obvious to me that
Sen. Teems was not acting in a negli
gent manner, but was a victim of the
SGA’s operational deficiencies, I with
drew the petition. Showing his dedica
tion to serving the student body, he
has even gone on to work with me,
and several others, on a bill that would
prohibit the student senate from voting
by secret ballot, as they have done on
several recent occasions.
Mark McCaig
President SGA Watch
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less and include the
author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for
length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid stu
dent ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net