Friday, October 1, 2010

Eagle Eye

One of the thing Siochru and Girard point out in "Global Governance: A Beginners Guide," is that one side of societal regulation is whether "the state has the right to intervene in and access the private transmission and communication in the general public interest. The balance of privacy and the public good is relevant to all media but is topical in the area of Internet encryption and whether the state should in principle be allowed to intercept and interpret encoded messages.”

Earlier this week, The New York Times reported on an effort by the Obama administration to push through legislation next year that would subject internet services ranging from Skype to Blackberries to be required to and have the technical capability to 'wiretap' its users if served with such an order. "The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year," states the article, "raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation."

The United States is not the first country to consider the bill, nor are these potential laws as strong as some of those that already exist in other countries. For example, the Indian government demanded earlier this year that Research In Motion, the company behind the Blackberry phone, develop software that would allow the government to decode encrypted emails and transmissions and display them in an easily read format. They have also warned that they intend to extend that decryption to other email and web-based services as well. The overall concept of both laws is that terrorists and other people who are potential security risks are increasingly using the internet and other digital means of communication to make their plans and plot their plots.

A key question here is the debate over what is being sacrificed, and who should get the final say in this level of technological regulation, as in both cases the order is coming down from on high. As the first New York Times article notes, this move by the Indian government will likely have the possibility of scaring away business. Gone are the confidential memos, the back door deals, and behind closed doors mergers; once a public entity is given free access to the keys of the kingdom, it's pretty clear that someone will have an easier time of snatching them away and getting into places they're not supposed to be in. Considering the illegitimate and inappropriate activities corporations will pursue in order to get the leg up on their competitors, it opens up a whole new black market for information, and would likely increase the rate of data mining, technological sabotage and new and creative computer viruses. The imposition of this law would not completely remove the element of secrecy from business deals, it certainly would severely handicap them; after all, one could never be sure if one was being watched.

It has also been argued that those in government are also not the best equipped to understand new technologies, much less regulate them. Several examples of this include the 1930 senate resolution to ban the dial telephone from the capitol building, to former Alaska representative Ted Steven's questionable understanding of the internet despite his leading role on a committee to regulate the issue of net neutrality in 2006.

As Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation states in the first New York Times article, “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.” Of course, these nation-states find themselves under somewhat legitimate potential security threats in a world where their enemies, as individuals and small groups are adapting quicker than the establishment. The question is whether the establishment can adjust their security procedures effectively, and what kind of impact a broad-ranging security bill like the one due next year will have on other aspects, particularly economic of the country and government.

No comments:

Post a Comment