Big Brother Wants All Up In Your Tweets

In the name of fighting crime and terrorism, the Obama administration is reportedly planning to propose a new measure to Congress that would require all companies with "products allowing Internet communication" to build a backdoor to their encryption so the information can be accessed by the government. This would all be with a court order, of course, but if passed it would mean that the government could monitor private conversations on Twitter, Facebook, Skype or any other social network you access at work. Because the most important part of any terrorist plot is to go on Twitter with, "Gettin ready 2 bomb temple! FU, Jews! #hatersgonnahate."

The measure would bring all peer-to-peer Internet communications under the same rules as the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, and would also prevent companies already subject to wiretapping orders from making any changes that would disrupt the government from intercepting calls. Critics say the measure would not only weaken citizen privacy, but also slow the rate at which companies could innovate, since they would have to make sure they are not violating a new law if they upgrade their telecom system.

In related news, the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act is making its way through the Senate. The act (read it here) is focused on copyright infringement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says, "enormous amount of noninfringing content, including political and other speech, could disappear off the Web if it passes...Indeed, had this bill been passed five or 10 years ago, YouTube might not exist today." And then where would this country be? Not spending all our time at work watching "Surprised Kitty" on mute, that's for sure.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jaya Saxena in News on November 2, 2010 12:10 PM

Comments [rss]

dgeee

Obama punked a nation.

verbal

When Bush was asking for the patriot act to actually go after terrorists all you whiny lib-douches were livid; now Comrade Obama wants in to keep on eye on 'our enemies' - that's you!

hotstepper

pretty much everyone here is against any bill that invades privacy no matter which president's ass sits in the oval office. so what the fuck are you blathering about moron?

jaycjay

"what the hell is a "Backdoor to encryption"?"

Simply a key. The government doesn't want to have to crack encryption logarithms, they want to be able to decrypt anything that a court says they can.

"there isn't a server in your office that logs your messenger communications. That happens on your computer. So the government wants to be able to access your work computer."

No, it has nothing to do with access to your work computer or your home computer because it doesn't need to. This covers communication carried over the Internet, which is both transmitted by carriers and stored on their servers. Those are the points at which the government would have access. If you use some sort of messaging on your work network with which all of the data stays within your LAN, it's not affected.

Right now the government can get a court order to tap a phone, and also to intercept other electronic communication. That is, they can already do this interception, but when the data stream is encrypted they can't do anything with it. That's not a barrier with traditional voice communication, and they want to remove it as a barrier in digital communication.

Not that I support the idea, but there's some misunderstanding in these comments as to what the idea actually is.

fuboy

This law sounds so fantastically horrible that it can't pass.

First off, what the hell is a "Backdoor to encryption"? Either you have full access or you don't. The government is requesting total access to business networks.

Second, in most offices there isn't a server in your office that logs your messenger communications. That happens on your computer. So the government wants to be able to access your work computer. Not just work networks, your computer specifically.

Third, "all companies with "products allowing Internet communication"" is pretty damn vague. Verizon and TimeWarner are such a companies. And that would mean that the government would have access to your home computer as well.

Way to try and be an evil overlord, Obama.

Nyctini11

How is this ok? What's to stop them from going after home computers, tapping all phones, etc, JFC

ides_of_march

This has squat to do with fighting crime or terrorism. It's about the government invading every aspect of peoples' lives and a great way to keep track of political dissidents.

Splicer

Which law lets us watch the watchers?

S.D.

Actually, congress has oversight.

Splicer

Whew...no collaboration with the Executive Branch there.

S.D.

Well, there is FOIA requests.

ides_of_march

The Constitution is supposed to do that but when someone insists on the government acting within strict constitutional limits, they get called nasty names like "tea baggers" and "rednecks" or "racists."

nicemarmot

Are you really such an idiot that you think they would only use this against conservative types? They already violate people's constitutional rights on both sides of the political spectrum all the time.

My favorite example of this happened when I was in college a fair number of years ago. Several local car dealerships had had their giant gas-guzzling SUVs set on fire during the night by "eco terrorists." A few weeks later, several government agencies raided an off-campus house rented by fellow students of mine. One of the students was an environmentalist with a common last name. They completely trashed the house and stole everything in it, from furniture to laptops to class projects. The house was unlivable when they were done with it. They never gave any explanation for why they had raided the house, or what they thought its residents were doing.

Several weeks later, after our school's administration was relentless in trying to get information on what happened (and with the help of a few alumni who were now politicians), we finally got an "explanation." The government agencies apparently felt that the environmentalist student was the eco-terrorist. However they'd gotten the eco-terrorist's name wrong, and the student bore absolutely no resemblance to the suspect seen on surveillance tapes. He also had alibis for almost all of the incidents. They had raided the wrong guy's house.

So you'd think they'd get some sort of restitution for their destroyed property, or at least get their computers back, right? Wrong. The government kept all their stuff as "evidence" despite admitting that they'd been targeting the wrong guy all along. The five students in the house who had never even been suspects were treated the same as the guy they'd mistaken for the eco-terrorist.

I think people on both sides can agree that the government shouldn't act like this toward anybody - no matter their political beliefs.

hotstepper

...or ACLU.

Kojak

Ridiculous. Not to mention such a backdoor would be EASY for hackers to exploit. Encryption technology has grown so much that the NSA itself cannot crack the most hardened encryption standards.

Want to protect your shit? Use truecrypt.