Wiretapping has been present in American society ever since when the first telephone was invented. The term has now expanded to include tapping internet connections as well.
The U.S. is looking to enforce new regulations for wiretapping the Internet because criminal suspects are abandoning the telephone as a means of communication. Federal law enforcement agencies claim that they need to keep up and expand their power in order to wiretap “all services that enable communications.” That includes Facebook and Skype. Once again, this raises the question of the balance between security and privacy.
Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the FBI, said that “We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts. We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.”
They are looking to expand this power abroad because currently, U.S. telephone and broadband services are already required to have the capacity to be intercepted under the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (1994). This bill would also mean that the government has to increase its subsidies for communications companies (on top of the large defense budget).
I say we let them do it. We have accepted social networking on the Internet, so we should be aware that the Internet is the last place where we should look for privacy. And besides, I doubt that any of us writes: “I’m about to bomb Times Square, come get me FBI!” for our status on FB.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
14 comments:
I completely agree with you, Lushuang. I wrote my research paper last year on the USA Patriot Act and - call me crazy - I argued that the act is justifiable. As use of the Internet continues to grow, federal agents must be able to track the statuses of suspected people. I know this may sound a bit like Big Brother to some, but (as Lushuang pointed out) the FBI has to receive warrants to wiretap in the first place, so they can't just invade the privacy of a random person. There are numerous securities in place to protect the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of the right to privacy. But even aside from that, doesn't national security override this small breach of personal liberty? If an FBI agent wants to snoop around my Facebook profile, let him - it's a small price to pay for protection.
-Jessia Hoffman
Before i even read your post my mindset was that i am against this because i have had many prompt's for essay's on wether phones should be wiretapped or not; however, after getting to the end of this i agree with you and what you believe. At first i was worried about this because i feel as americans, we should have the right for privacy and if the government, or to be more exact, the FBI, wants to wiretap say the internet they shouldn't be allowed to. They could wiretap the internet and interpret things, that they see or hear on the internet, as something bad when it really is not. However, after getting to the end of your post i understand that no one has privacy on social networks such as Myspace and Facebook and we really are not private with anything on these websites anyways. I still sort of against this idea but i am leading more to the side of allowing it.
Although I understand the view that the government needs to be able to track suspected people, and it must keep up with advancing technology in order to do so, I do not think that this bill will be very effective. One of the main problems with the USA PATRIOT Act was that it led to an overflow of information, and made it difficult to discern which people were truly criminals, and which not. The surveillance resources that the government already has should be sufficient to keep tabs on any suspects. Another question that such a law raises is about who can actually be called "suspect." In my opinion, such a law is a waste of money and resources. The government would be better off using resources to better enforce the laws that already exist, and to improve intelligence and security, rather than to create more laws.
Personally, I think this is ridiculous.
"Wiretapping the Internet" does not simply entail "snooping around on a Facebook profile". It entails a complete violation of privacy, and the monitoring of every single little packet that runs in and out that RJ-45 or in and out that Blackberry. It involves going to the ISP itself, which obviously won't make it clear to the consumer that his/her internet use is being monitored.
Furthermore, the act states that ISPs would have to provide decryption methods for all means of data encryption, and redesign P2P services to allow interception. An ISP's security walls, in this sense, would exist no more, greatly hampering their consumers' rights.
Everyone also keeps restricting the act to the NY Times' headline: "U.S. Tries to make it Easier to Wiretap the Internet". In fact, this is completely misleading. It is not just the internet, but all "services that enable communications" that would have to comply with the act; that is, essentially all services that operate under a network server. The line of sight under these "communication services" are unbelievably large, larger than they're being marketed as. The article actually comments that there is no agreement on "how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider" and that the US government is looking "to apply [the act] broadly."
This just furthers the ante on why we SHOULDN'T support the bill. We could be looking at a new Interstate Commerce fiasco here; we cannot let this happen.
I have to disagree because i feel that the privacy of personal information is important to matter where the source and how minor the information is. Many social networks (such as facebook) and other online sites build their networks on the promise of securing privacy. Violating that promise would break the trust of hundreds of millions of users, putting many of them at risk where they had felt safe before, and because by burning that trust online, the next generation of online innovation built on top of online user data is put at risk.
@Jasmine: I must wholeheartedly disagree. Most of what you post on Facebook should be public stuff (after all the Internet should be the last place to look for privacy). Also, why would you care? The government will not care if you are only talking about homework. I seriously doubt that they will read your stuff for fun; why would they remember yours out of several millions? And also, wiretapping the Internet will most likely require "reasonable suspicion", as otherwise it actually would violate privacy.
Yes, I agree with Charlie in that whatever you post on the Internet stays on the internet for all to see. Facebook does not have an obligation to keep whatever you want private. They are allowed to change their terms of contract as they choose. Also, Google keeps a cache of a lot of the files whether public or private. Facebook or Google are allowed to use your profile picture for advertisement or any other reason. In essence, Facebook and Google are already "wiretapping" people without the government's approval. They save your IP address and know where you live, what you do. I feel it is very fair for the government to be able to access this kind of information as companies already use it for commercial means. With the internet, the government can access most of the information without even a warrant as the whole world can already see it. We live in a period of time when the internet has been used by terrorists to get an upper hand on law enforcement. The Mumbai attack a couple of years back was a perfect example. A couple of terrorists were able to successfully launch a fairly large scale attack on an entire police force. As long as the government does not take advantage of their rights, I feel it is fairly reasonable. We cannot let terrorists be more informed than our police.
Ryan, I respect your opinions, but I must disagree.
First of all, you mentioned that the consumer will not be informed that his/her internet use is being monitored. That is not true because as Charlie, Jonathan, and I have asserted, the Internet is not the place to look for privacy. It parallels any other public facility, so the expectancy of privacy is obvious lower or none at all. Also, as Jessia and I have mentioned, the government is still required to acquire a warrant for all related decryptions and wiretapping. Also, just as a more obvious example, the picture of in the blog has a phone that clearly states: “This phone is tapped.”
Let’s also remember that the government is the one who will decrypt the information. People who oppose this are the ones who have things to hide from the government. The government isn’t going to care about any regular civilian’s personal emails because the purpose of this bill to strengthen law enforcement to insure domestic tranquility and provide for common defense of the nation. There will be no consumer rights without a stable country in the first place.
Yes, the headline says: “U.S. Tries to Make it Easier to Wiretap the Internet”. But who would read an article that says “U.S. Tries to make it Easier to Wiretap all Services that Enable Communications”? Maybe the title was like that because the Internet was the focus of the article. Maybe the editors wanted to make it colloquial. Maybe the editors wanted to attract more attention because internet privacy is big contention today. Maybe they simply didn’t have enough room on the paper for a longer title. This title does not make this article or bill invalid.
Also, there is some contention as to the definition of “communications service provider,’ but isn’t every bill supposed to be debated and amended and debated some more before it’s finalized? This bill is still in its early stages and the definition is a fairly important aspect so we should allow them more time to discuss it.
It will be difficult to regulate these procedures if the bill is passed, but that is not to say that this will be an interstate commerce fiasco. If the federal government was afraid to carry out any controversial law that involved the nation as a whole, then why doesn’t the U.S. split into fifty countries?
To put it bluntly: I’d rather live than protect whatever I have in my gmail inbox. :]
I must say that this is a step towards a big brother type of society, were people can't freely express their ideas without feeling like they are being watched. Why should the government have the power to "wire-tap" your Facebook account, when private companies, that are trying to direct certain type of advertisements at you, cant. Some people enjoy the privacy that the U.S gives, and they use Email, Facebook, Skype, Etc, to communicate important information between people (Like company secrets, and when to buy stocks). This is more unprecedented power given to the government, and whats the next source of communication are they going to infringe on next?
Pretty soon they will create laws that monitor what is said between people when they are talking in person just for the sake of "Safety".
Personally, I don't care if they're trained professionals, they are still invading my own personal privacy. The only way that I can argue that they are not invading my privacy, is if they don't do it at all.
I don't think I would mind wiretapping, unless they decided to crack down on watching TV through not so legal sources (I can't help it, its the only way I can watch it). I just hope that if they are monitoring me, they can tell the difference between how I normally am and my sarcasm.
I'm more worried about various companies getting the info, which unfortunately some companies do.
@ LuShaung:
So you're saying that the consumer WILL BE INFORMED THAT HIS/HER INTERNET USE IS BEING MONITORED because the internet is "not a place to look for privacy?" Right. We're not talking purely about CONTENT on the internet, or through communication services. We're talking about HOW and WHERE this content is being sent from. You're saying that if you send a text message to one of your friends, you shouldn't expect this communication to stay private?
Communication between private individuals, whether it be through online networks or not, is NOT public forum. There IS an expectation of privacy, and noone can deny this. In this regard, I think it's hard to say that there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY online.
And the government won't care about people's personal emails? But the act gives the government access to decryption of PRIVATE ISP'S databases, right? Would you want someone to have access to all of your private information, whether or whether not there's a possibility that they might read it? (which there is, by the way.)
And I never said the title of the article made the article or bill invalid. I said it made the article misleading. I also more or less made a reference to your piggybacking off of this wording, and interpretation of the bill as applying only to the INTERNET, which you implied as being only content on websites, when the bill clearly does more than that.
And this bill isn't just a "controversial law." It's a complete and utter invasion of privacy, and cannot be tolerated.
And you'd rather "live" eh? Pretty strong language, considering the potential positive "effects" of this bill are up for strong debate.
Good day.
I don't have any objections to this from a privacy standpoint. All this bill specifies is that all communications services should be capable of following a wiretap order (for which the authority already exists) should one be received.
However, how helpful will this be? If the FBI is already fingering a criminal, is communications tapping really the best way to produce evidence?
I get the impression that complying with this law seems to require a massive restructuring of certain communications services simply in order to enable government agencies to wiretap them if they so choose. Is this even reasonable, and is it really worthwhile?
Post a Comment