Atticus
Posting Num. 1
Topic Science and Technology
Title U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
Author Charlie Savage
Publication The New York Times
Date September 27, 2010
Length 1,320 words
Main Idea
According to Charlie Savage of the New York Times, the Obama administration plans next year to release a bill that will force internet communication companies to allow government wiretapping. This bill, which should be unleashed sometime next year, is similar to the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, which allowed government surveillance of home and cell phones. The new bill, however, targets non-voice methods of communication, such as social networking sites (watch what you say on facebook chat!), email, IM, and other "peer-to-peer" communication services. It would force service providers to open up a "back door" to the government such that, if ever it was deemed necessary, the network could be accessed by the authorities. The idea stems from the failed interception of a drug cartel, because they used internet communication to stay off the radar and avoid detection. As general communication continues to move farther away from traditional phone networks and closer to the ever magical internet, government officials say they're "going dark" in terms of electronic surveillance. Criticisms have arisen both about the controversial breech of privacy and about the security risks involved in essentially cutting holes into encryption that could be potentially exploited by hackers, which happened to the prime minister in Greece. However government officials responded that the services in question don't have to remain unencrypted, so long as they can "...figure out how they can provide us plain text." Companies that refused to comply would be fined and penalized until they found a workaround.
Conclusion
The US government may soon pass laws forcing internet communication service providers to allow government surveillance. The law would force unscrambling, unencryption, and interception of numerous means of communication, including email, IM and social networking. This act is a controversial one, as it is arguably a breech of privacy and the potential security risks are unclear.
What do I think?
This issue is quite controversial. I can understand the necessity and definite advantages of this degree of surveillance, these interception techniques could prove invaluable in the face of crime. It seems also to be quite a step in the direction of big brother, perhaps too much an uncomfortable intrusion of the privacy of the average citizen. If done correctly and on a low enough scale, perhaps this could be a step in the direction of Jack Bauer efficiency counter-terrorism rather than 1984 totalitarian government, however, there's certainly a ways left to go before I feel comfortable with the FBI reading my text messages.
I believe that this bill is too intrusive on the privacy and communication of citizens. I can see how the government would be concerned with national security and I agree that action should be taken. But tapping into internet communication seems to be crossing the line too much and hindering the freedom of citizens.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is an another type of issue that sparks a debate between security and privacy. As the internet spread worldwide, any people can use the internet's communication services. For criminals, internet is a best way to communicate with others since the police won't search the internet. So I understand that the government want to check the internet to see if there are any illegal deals going on in the internet. But of course, not all of the average citizens do such things. People do have the Forth Amendment to prevent unreasonable search by the police or the government. The wiretapping of internet is effective, but the citizen will surely debate against it saying that internet wiretapping violates their privacy. If the government put strict restrictions on this wiretapping like for the phone wiretapping, then this bill can be signed without any controversy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon, this bill is extremely intrusive, and unreasonable. Yes, actions such as protecting our country from harm is reasonable, but this won't do anything to prevent that. There must be other ways to have that happen. I think this violates our rights as Americans. I don't think the population of America will agree to such a thing, since this is completely absurd!
ReplyDeleteI also find this bill way to intrusive. Privacy is a very important issue to Americans, and there would be a huge outcry with this were instated. Plus, the internet at large is a place where people want to exercise their freedom of speech, and would not take kindly to the government imposing on this. Besides, half the things said on the internet are untrue, so it really is not a reliable way of tracking criminal activity.
ReplyDeleteI'm not with either side as of yet. Like most people above have stated, the bill does nose a bit too far into private matters for comfort and stretches the line of freedom, but privacy aside, unless a person has something to hide, this prying shouldn't be of worry. I've seen a lot of anonymous people on random chats or pages that are still pro superiority of race, or some other anti-freedom/religious group in cyber-bullying.
ReplyDeleteI understand why there is a lot of controversy over a bill like this. The government is trying to find a balance between national security an personal privacy. But I think that invading privacy on the internet is unnecessary and would not have be very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteI understand where the government is coming from, but this bill is overdoing it. They have enough things to invade our privacy, and now the internet. Its not even going to make a big difference, are they just going to catch a few drug cartels? There are bigger issues we need to fix.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mario that it's hard to try to find a balance between national security and personal privacy, but I think that there's no point for having privacy on the internet because it is meant for communication in the first place. It's counter-productive and defeats the purpose of having privacy if it's already on the internet.
ReplyDeletei agree with Emily that the internet is meant for communication and that privacy should not be expected when using it. However i do belive that there is a limit to how far this can go. i don't think that e-mails should be open to everybody for example.
ReplyDeletei understand why they are doing it but its hard to find a balance to the situation.and no matter what there will always be people who will try to avoid the law and they are the ones that should pay the price not citizens. And the normal route that goes with more rules is that criminals get craftier and harder to catch. its like an endless game of cat and mouse.
ReplyDeleteIts the internet you should assume that whatever you do is not private. The government wire tapping is nothing special it just makes it more convenient for them to monitor any illegal activities that take place on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is already not private why in the world would they need to wire tap it?
ReplyDeleteI get that this isn't a huge expansion on internet privacy since everything that is on the internet is already public, but I don't really like the idea of losing MORE privacy to the government. I think we have already compromised so much....
ReplyDeleteI agree that this bill is very intrusive. I agree that the government should be interested in protecting the country and its citizens, but I do not think that this is the way to do it.
ReplyDelete