Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

September 28, 2010 -

In order to combat the decreasing use of archaic telephones, the Obama administration is preparing a bill that would allow law enforcement and national security officials greater access to online communications.

As reported by the New York Times, such a bill would require online services such as Blackberry’s encrypted email system, or social sites like Facebook, to be “technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order.”

Some, like Columbia University’s Steven Bellovin, a Computer Science Professor, see a problem with the mandate, because hackers could figure out how to gain access through the new backdoors. Bellovin called it, “… a disaster waiting to happen.”

Meanwhile, The FBI’s General Counsel Valerie Caproni defended the fledgling bill, stating, “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.”

Center for Democracy and Technology Vice President James Dempsey was against the proposed measure as well, saying, “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”

The current plan is to submit the bill to lawmakers next year.


Comments

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

A shame we no longer believe in guilty before innocent on wait...never mind. And due course and problem able cause backed up by a judges warrant.


How far have we fallen, the government has to much power and is not slowly with powers invested in it by the wooly masses and the corporate herders and ra...er animal "lovers" we are headed for a full fledged authoritarian system were the worker is watched and told what to do and how to do it from the cradle to the cubicle to their apartment and not only are we supporting it we are gleefully awaiting that achievement.

 

We must be wary of government and distrustful of business if not they will take advantage of us, and without us neither would exist, there is a balance to things and humanity is mostly ill prepared for them.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

Ridiculous.

A digital system is either secure, totally, or it is insecure. There is no backdoor system that will ensure only the "right" people can have access. Any vulnerability in a system will be exploited by malicious individuals. Not "may be" or "could be," will be. Government agencies routinely fail cybersecurity audits. The idea that they will be able to keep the keys to my system secure when they can't even do it with the keys to their own systems is laughable.

What the administration is saying, really and truly, is that they want to make Americans more vulnerable all of the time to people seeking to do them harm, in the interests of protecting them some of the time. That logic doesn't pass muster.

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

 And people wonder why net neutrality is a big issue? You really want THESE people having full control over your internet? It'll start out with cell phones and websites, soon it'll move to God knows where. Just think of what they would do if they had control over something like that. 

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

You forget that when the government wanted communications info with shady legal justification, all they had to do was ask (and promise to protect from lawsuits). Leaving the internet in the hands of the telecoms is no protection for freedoms or privacy. Bucking the government is rarely profitable, and profit is all they care about.

I can vote out Obama, and any of my representatives that support this. I can't vote out Cox. There is no other option in my area.

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

You don't really think that "voting out those who support this" is an effective deterrent against misuse, do you?

If we give the government the ability to control the internet with a net neutrality bill, this is EXACTLY what they will do.  Don't be so stupid as to think otherwise.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

And you somehow think private entities with regional monopolies have any incentive to "behave?"

They've already proven they'll throw customer rights to the wind at government request. There is nothing to stop them, short of lawsuits, and it's already been proven the government will shield them from that too if they play ball.

You're placing trust in entities that have proven at least as untrustworthy as politicians, and with even less accountability.

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

Had this been proposed by Bush, there would literally (and rightfully) have been protests in the streets and tons of news coverage.  Of course, responsible citizenship and journalism seems to end when the "correct" leadership is in place.  :(

 

 

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

Bias?  What bias?  ;)

Re: Obama Seeks Greater Access to Online Communication

Because apparently the UAE is the government we want to emulate.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician