DAMMAM, 30 September — The Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in the United States have prompted authorities all over the world to introduce strong surveillance laws in order to de-encrypt messages and monitor Net communication. The move has caused a ripple in the cyberworld and human rights bodies say that such a law would be an infringement of the basic human right to communicate.
The FBI and intelligence authorities in the United States say that if they had succeeded in de-encrypting the e-mails of the accused terrorists, then the tragedy might have been averted. There has been a move for such a law for some time but pressure from business houses as well as human rights bodies forced authorities in the US and UK to shelve the idea.
But in the aftermath of Sept 11, the idea has taken off and authorities in both countries are now defending plans to de-encrypt messages and to pass strict surveillance laws to check terrorists. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in a recent interview called those opposing surveillance laws “naive”. He said that if the authorities had de-encrypted messages exchanged between the accused terrorists, then the British authorities might have nabbed them, while they were passing through the United Kingdom. An earlier report has suggested that 11 of the alleged hijackers might have passed through the United Kingdom. Straw said that those who oppose surveillance laws are questioning why the authorities failed to nab them while they were in the UK.
In the United States also, the campaign for surveillance of the cyberworld is gaining strength. It is reported that the FBI has strongly recommended surveillance laws and the Bush administration is listening seriously. Experts feel, however, that such a move will only affect the privacy of the common man and would hardly be effective against terrorists and other offenders.
A Canadian expert on Net security said that such a move would only hurt genuine businesses as well as the common man, especially those in developing countries. He said Net security was one thing but de-encrypting messages was “altogether a different phenomenon.” He agreed that Net security was absolutely necessary to safeguard the interests of banking as well as other institutions — but de-encrypting will change the entire scenario, he said.
Many experts feel that de-encrypting of messages would in no way help stop terrorism. The terrorists will then develop other means of communication or perhaps new software will surface to make de-encryption more difficult, if not impossible.
Experts feel that if such laws came into effect then the Net would start declining and users would not feel comfortable. “All the time, one feeling will nag the users — somewhere someone is reading my messages,” said the Canadian expert.
Some experts believe that there are other means available for surveillance rather than de-encryption of messages. They say that many web-based e-mail services may introduce city identity systems by which every mail would carry the name of the city. “This will help in identifying the city of origin and hence nabbing culprits and wrongdoers would become much easier,” said Abdullah Ali, a local security expert.
What will happen next has now become anybody’s guess. Net users are awaiting the decision with their fingers crossed. But one thing is clear — after the Sept. 11 attacks, the cyberworld has changed and will see more changes in coming days. Business houses, scientists, academicians, housewives and students alike will be very skeptical of using the Net and expressing their feelings, findings and observations freely since somewhere in their mind is the thought that someone might be reading their words.
Experts say that if this happens, that would be the beginning of the end of the cyberworld and the terrorists will have scored a victory. They will have succeeded in depriving the world with the most fascinating phenomenon in the history of communications. Is there a way out of this crisis?
***
(Comments to [email protected])
