Ramble on Internet Wiretapping

Take a look at this article, which was in the subject line of my NY Times email this morning.

The gist is, terrorists used to communicate via means that the government could easily tap - mainly the telephone - but now there are ways of communication that the government doesn't have the technological ability intercept. For example, encrypted emails (such as those trasmitted by BlackBerries), Facebook, and Skype. So now, the Obama administration is planning to submit a bill to Congress that would basically require such means of communication to be interceptable.

According to the article, new requirements would be:

• Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
• Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.
• Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.

I can't decide how I feel about this. Of course, my gut reaction is "Hey government, get off my Facebook and get out of my inbox!" I mean no one wants the government to be able to hack into their Skype conversations or arrest them because they wrote "Obama sucks" on someone else's Facebook wall. Plus, it's reminding me of post-9/11 Bush all over again (although to be fair, most of the information I have on the whole arresting-innocent-people thing comes from Farenheit 911). But still, I thought we were maybe moving away from the Patriot Act and back towards privacy except with a warrant.

Then again, maybe it's not such a bad thing. Why should there be such a loophole, such a gap in our security where terrorists can easily communicate? Before the technologies developed away from it, the government could always intercept communications. And really, the main purpose of the FBI and the CIA is to keep us safe. This supposed bill wouldn't even give them more power per se, it would just maintain the investigative powers the government already has, and anyway, no one says that they're going to be banging down doors and torturing people for three days just because of an "Obama sucks" comment. So it's fine, as long as they don't abuse this power. Right? Or should they not be able to tap private communications in the first place? When is it Big Brother, and when is it protecting the well-being of American citizens?

For example, the Times Square bombing that failed in May might've been prevented completely if the government had been able to intercept the terrorists' communications. Investigations into things like drug cartels would be possible. It seems like it's in our best interests for our governmental intelligence agencies not to be hindered in working to stop terrorists. What they do makes all of us safer. So where's the line where those of us who have nothing to fear sacrifice some personal privacy in order to increase national security? But then again, how can we really trust that the government will use that power well if it's granted? Based on the fact that technologies have moved away from being interceptable by the government, is it really fair to require the creators of such technologies to put time, money, and effort into altering their systems just so that the government can hack in?

Mmkay, I think this ramble is long enough. We'll see if this plan even goes anywhere. But it surprised me when I read about it this morning, and then I talked about it with some people at lunch, and I figured it'd be a good topic to ramble about.