Monday, September 27, 2010

"Broader Internet Wiretap Authority"

According to Fox News,
The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services -- such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype -- to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday.
Regardless of whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, if the Bush administration had been considering it, the Lefties would be swarming out of the woodwork to condemn it as the beginnings of totalitarianism. Will they do the same now that their man is in office?

Don't hold your breath. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.


professor ed said...

Dear Dennis, et al.: if you haven't read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, you are missing a great insight into how/why our president is behaving the way he does. Yes the wiretap authority is EXTREMELY worrisome. But what can we expect from Obama when he, and his advisors, believe strongly in government centralized authority which can be used to "spread the wealth". Obama's mentor Alinsky talks of revoution leading to the "have-nots" removing the "haves". What Alinsky, in my opinion, does not clarify is what happens when the have-nots become the haves. Yes, I am VERY concerned about our president, his advisors, and his core beliefs.

Kevin said...

I agree with your main point about hypocrisy (or perhaps this is just exposing the blowhards real intentions... power through deceit).

The US government seems to be completely clueless. There are two basic components to modern communication: the network and the software. The network doesn't matter too much b/c it just transmits data and that data can be encrypted and presumably can only be unencrypted by the party that sent the data or the person who is supposed to receive it. That just leaves the software...

Targeting software services like Skype, or Facebook is absurd. If I'm a terrorist and I want to communicate privately I'll just software that doesn't have any central company facilitating it's use. You don't need servers for most point-to-point communication. If you did need a server you could just host the server outside of the US. The point is crackign down on these services probably doesn't secure the US. It does create added cost for the businesses. It does give the government the ability to spy on its citizens (if that's even technically possible).

Why is the US government seeking to expand its ability to spy on its citizens when there are no apparent security benefits?