U.S. security expert justifies anti-terror laws

U.S. security expert justifies anti-terror laws

In an increasingly digital world of data-gathering company is more danger to the privacy of citizens as to the works of the law like the Patriot Act against terrorism. The Richard Clarke, counterterrorism strategist of U.S. President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said in an interview with CNet News. Almost ten years after the adoption of the anti-terror laws in the U.S. are U.S. citizens now living safer.

The Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act was already on 26 October 2001, shortly after the attacks of 11 September 2001, after adoption by the U.S. Senate come for the President's signature. He approved, among other things, the U.S. law enforcement agencies more powers to track and monitor suspects. Many people have reacted negatively to the package because they had linked to events which the law did not contain, however, said Clarke. Would have none of the surveillance by the authorities and intelligence services that caught the public discontent, had been legitimized by the Patriot Act.

Particularly the air traffic had become more secure by the laws. That there since the 11 September 2001 had been no direct attacks on the U.S. itself was partly due to the Patriot Act. On the other hand, it would probably have been easier for terrorists to attack Americans in Iraq. The term "cyber terrorism" Clarke is misleading, since there between terrorism and cyber crime are only a few overlaps. The main crime in cyberspace are theft and espionage.

E-espionage had become widespread, said Clarke, who advises his company Good Harbor Consulting companies and government agencies in security matters. In this field in particular, China is active. From the perspective of the People's Republic that was understandable, after all there are no sanctions for spying on networks. The remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn of the end of May, which represent, according to hacker attacks could be a reason for war, was over-interpreted. If a cyber attack would cause similar damage such as by a bomb, but that was perhaps to be regarded as an act of war.

Clarke is the recently joined Bit9 Board of Directors of the security service. Compared to the blog AllThingsD he justified the step so that problem Bit9 solutions offering beyond the standard procedures.