L36 Surveillance

Loading...

Del curso dictado por University of Colorado System

Homeland Security and Cybersecurity Future

44 calificaciones

University of Colorado System

Homeland Security and Cybersecurity Future

44 calificaciones

Curso 4 de 4 en SpecializationHomeland Security and Cybersecurity

This course takes a look at the future of cybersecurity with respect to what is being done to lessen the potential for catastrophic destruction resulting from cyber attack on critical infrastructure. In this respect, we take a short survey of potential technological solutions and response options. We conclude this module by taking a look at unique aspects of the cyber profession and personal considerations for those who want to make cybersecurity a career.

De la lección

Module 15: Escaping the Cyber Trap

This module examines legal issues related to cyber crime and cyber surveillance. It also examines how critical infrastructure might eventually evolve and become immune to cyber attack.

L36 Surveillance5:01

Conoce a los instructores

Richard White
Assistant Research Professor
Computer Science

Welcome to Lesson 36.

In the previous lesson we asked ourselves about going after cyber criminals and

learned that it is a booming industry because very few are caught.

It is not easy to trace the evidence from the crime scene to the criminal.

In this lesson,

we'll look at another aspect of this problem related to cyber surveillance.

We start as before with the 1984 Counterfeit Access Device and

Computer Fraud Act which makes it illegal to access a computer without permission

from the owner.

Of course we understand this to mean that it is a crime to attempt to access

somebody's personal computer or intercept internet traffic coming and going from it.

This law does not apply however to workplace computers.

The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act

gives employers the right to monitor the usage of their own property.

While local legislation varies, in general, it is legal for

a company to monitor workplace computers, laptops and cell phones.

This law applies only to company property.

Personal devices remain off limits.

Companies maybe motivated by the desire to monitor employee performance, or to

prevent them from engaging in activities that might get the company sued.

Either way, lawyers suggest developing a clear and reasonable monitoring policy,

limiting monitoring to work related activities and

notifying employees that their work is subject to monitoring.

What about government surveillance?

In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked information about the PRISM

domestic surveillance program.

PRISM was authorized by the 2007 Protect America Act under the Bush administration

and was extended for five more years in 2012, under the Obama administration.

Congress put an end to the program in 2015,

however, after it was leaked by Snowden.

PRISM was used to collect targeted Internet communications,

in which at least one of the parties was outside the United States.

As interpreted by the courts, the fourth amendment prevents surveillance of US

citizens, unless a warrant is issued citing probable cause.

Such warrants may be obtained through special courts

established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In 2008, FISA was amended to allow US intelligence agencies to conduct

surveillance of US citizens, for up to a week without obtaining a warrant.

PRISM used this authority to collect qualifying Internet communications.

Collection was done by the FBI on the behalf of the National Security Agency.

NSA would identify surveillance targets and

send them to the FBI data intercept technology unit.

The FBI intern would forward the list to Internet service providers,

together with a subpoena demanding to turn over the data.

Corporate executives of several companies identified in the late documents,

said they had no knowledge of PRISM and

denied handing over such information to the government.

Such denials may be expected because the FISA amendment act forbids companies

from disclosing, having received such an order, let alone acting upon it.

Despite corporate denials and the fact Congress closed the program in 2015,

allegations that Yahoo had cooperated with NSA surveillance programs

threatened to overturn a $4.8 billion sale to Verizon in 2016.

The point of this cautionary tale is that cybersecurity presents

dangers from both sides.

Both from the good guys as well as the bad guys.

Still it is important to remember the following.

1, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows

employers to monitor company computers, laptops, and cell phones.

2, legal experts suggest companies develop clear monitoring policies,

limit monitoring to work related activities and

notifying employees that they are subject to monitoring.

3, the Fourth Amendment prohibits

surveillance of US citizens without a warrant indicating probable cause.

4, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

establishes a court system for seeking surveillance warrants.

5, the PRISM program took advantage of a 2008

FISA amendment that allowed surveillance for up to a week without a warrant.

And 6, following the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013,

Congress shutdown the PRISM program in 2015.

Please join me next time.

We take a closer look at how the US military is preparing to protect

national cyberspace.

Cheers.

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play