Sistema de creencias: estudiantes de docencia y formadores de docentes

In this section I shall continue the discussion of the constitutional protection of privacy, but will focus more on the codification of this constitutional pro- tection in criminal procedure. In the United States the constitutional protection of privacy is guaranteed mainly by the Fourth Amendment. Special attention will be devoted to the United States Patriot Act as it has fundamentally changed the rules governing surveillance in criminal procedures. While the raison d’etreof the Patriot Act is the fight against international terrorism, its provisions are so broad that they also include criminal investigations. There- fore, I shall start the discussion of the Patriot Act in this section and not in section 5.10 that deals with national security.

Before we turn to a discussion on the rules of criminal procedure, I shall first briefly discuss the Privacy Act of 1974, as it sets forth important rules for the use of (personal) data by agencies of the United States government.

5.9.1 Privacy Act of 1974

In 1974, Congress passedThe Privacy Act, in part due to government violations of privacy during the Nixon administration.34_{The Privacy Act regulates the}

use and disclosure of personal data by government agencies. It is codified in Title 5, paragraph 552a of The United States Code. Much like the Dutch Data Protection laws it is inspired by the fair information practice principles. In 1988, the Privacy Act was amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act, which governed the use of automated computer matching programs, such as data mining programs. The goals were to create procedural

32 In September of 2006 a ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) opened up more room for the use of intelligence information in criminal trials (Hoge Raad, 01423/05, LJN AV4144). Moreover, in November 2006 legislation was passed that allowed the use of anonymous witnesses in criminal trials (Wet Afgeschermde Getuigen).

33 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2005–2006, 30 553, nr. 2. 34 Pub. L. No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (1974).

uniformity in the application of matching programs, a greater degree of oversight, and the insurance of the data subject’s rights.

While the Privacy Act sets forth important rules for data processing by the government, most notably in the area of data mining, its impact on law enforcement is minimal in practice. The reason for this is that the Privacy Acts contains a number of provisions that exempt law enforcement agencies from the rules of the Privacy Act. Federal law enforcement can thus bypass the rules of the Privacy Act when it comes to the use of information gathering and data- mining technologies such as software agents.

5.9.2 Title 18USC, Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Title 18 of the United States Code governs crime and criminal procedure in the United States. The use of electronic surveillance tools is not exhaustively codified in the United States Code. As described in the sections on the constitu- tional protection of privacy, the question whether a particular surveillance practice is constitutional, is most often a matter that is decided by the courts on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. However, some parts of the United States Code do deal with surveillance and privacy in criminal procedures. With regard to restrictions to the federal government’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance, various important laws have been enacted over the years. For the subject matter of this thesis, TitleIIIof theOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968and theElectronics Communications Privacy Act of 1986are most relevant.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

In 1968, theOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Actwas enacted.35_Title

IIIof the Omnibus Act created a legal foundation for electronic surveillance in the United States. The Act prohibited private persons to conduct electronic surveillance, while granting law enforcement officials the authority to conduct electronic surveillance. More specifically, TitleIIIauthorised the interception of wire and oral communications by federal agents for the purpose of a criminal investigation. The term interception refers to the acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication transmitted from one party to another.

TitleIIIhas been entered into the United States Code under chapter 119 (§§ 2510et seq.) and has been updated several times in order to keep up with the state of technology. The most important change to the statute came with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

As a result of developments in information and communication technologies, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986.36_The

Act amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, broadening its scope to include electronic communications (such as email, data trans- missions, and faxes).

While interception is concerned with the acquisition of the content of communication, the acquisition of dialing and signalling information can be equally important. Therefore, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act also provided a statutory basis for the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, which enabled law enforcement agencies to collect non-content traffic information associated with telecommunications (18USC, chapter 206, § 3121 et seq.). A pen register is a surveillance device that captures the numbers of outgoing telephone calls, while trap and trace devices capture the numbers identifying incoming calls. These devices do not collect any information regarding the content of telephone calls. Unsurprisingly, pen registers and trap and trace devices have become important investigative tools in the in- formation age.

5.9.3 The Attorney General’s Guidelines

The rules and procedures for conducting criminal investigations that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has to follow are further specified inThe Attorney General’s Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise, and Terrorism Enterprise Investigation(DOJ2002).These Guidelines were supple- mented by theAttorney General’s Guidelines forFBINational Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection(Minowet al.2002, p. 29).37

5.9.4 The United States Patriot Act

On October 11, 2001 new anti-terrorism legislation passed the Senate in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The legislation, that carried the short title ‘USAPatriot Act’, updated and amended over 15 different laws in order to provide more adequate legal tools to combat terrorism. Amongst other things it created new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists. Moreover, it gave greater authority to public officials to track and intercept communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes (Doyle 2002).

36 Pub. L. No. 99- 508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986).

37 In the context of intelligence gathering for national security the rules and procedures are specified in President Reagan’sExecutive Order 12333.

When enacted in 2001, the Patriot Act gave sweeping new authorities to law enforcement agencies to collect and share information regarding possible terrorist attacks. Many of these new powers were considered to be so far- reaching that they contained a ‘sunset clause’. This clause limited the time that certain provisions would be in effect to December 31, 2005. At the end of 2005 the Bush administration sought to renew the Patriot Act without any significant reforms, this included an extension of the controversial sections that contained sunset clauses. While initially resistance to an extension of certain parts of the Patriot Act was strong, Congress eventually passed the renewal in March 2006 after some privacy safeguards were added.38_However,

most of the controversial clauses that were to sunset at the end of 2005 were extended without significant changes.

For the subject matter of this thesis TitleIIof the Patriot Act is of particular interest as it deals with information sharing and investigative powers. Title IIreflects three themes: (1) expanded investigative and surveillance authority, (2) expanded investigative and surveillance abilities, and (3) information sharing of ‘foreign intelligence’ information between federal investigative agencies, in particular theFBIandCIA (Michaels 2002, p. 46). Below I shall describe those provisions most relevant to the subject matter of this thesis. Information sharing (sec. 203)

In order to make the sharing of information more easy, the Patriot Act amends section 2517 of title 18 of the United States Code. Section 203 of the Patriot Act allows any investigative officer, law enforcement officer, or attorney of the government to disclose knowledge of any wire, oral, or electronic com- munication (or evidence derived therefrom), to any other federal law enforce- ment, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defence, or national security official, to assist these officials in the performance of their official duties (§b). The information that may be shared includes foreign intelligence and foreign intelligence information (§d). While paragraphs (b) and (d) were set to sunset on December 31, 2005, they have been extended through the Patriot Reauthorization Act.

Pen registers and trap and trace devices (sec. 216)

Section 216 of theUSAPatriot Act updated the existing legislation dealing with trap and trace devices in two important ways: (1) the amendments clarify that law enforcement may use pen/trap orders to trace communications on the internet and computer networks, and (2) pen/trap orders issued by federal courts now have nationwide effect (Schmalleger 2004, p. 314). Furthermore, section 216 provides that upon certification that the information likely to be obtained from the installation of the pen/trap is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, a federal court shall enter anex parteorder authorizing

the use of the pen trap/register. The surveillance can be aimed at any foreign national, but may also be aimed at United States citizens if the activity the citizen is involved in is not under the protection of the First Amendment (Michaels 2002, p. 58). This section was also set to sunset at the end of 2005, but has been extended through the Patriot Reauthorization Act.