- Swallowing Yahoo may make Microsoft want to take a nap
- ISO approves OOXML as standard
- Maintaining integrity on the Net
- Microsoft caves, in part, to online computing
- Eyewitness to H-1B scammers
- Social networking hits the bar scene big screen
- Is the slow economy hurting high-tech sales?
- Take the smarts out of smartphones
- U.S. Immigration [USCIS] changes selection process for H-1B visas
- Will the iPhone force Apple to change course?
August 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Technology and the Bill of Rights
Do 18th century concepts of personal freedom still work in the 21st century?
For some reason, I don't expect the chairman of AT&T to stand up and say, "Give me liberty or give me death." It is just not going to happen. Therefore I'm not surprised that AT&T and other telecom companies complied when the government asked these companies to assist in wiretapping their customers.
But our legislators are a different story. We should expect more from them. As far as the Democrats and Republicans are concerned, I say a plague on both their houses.
Of course, in time of war it is not like there isn't precedent for companies complying with government directives. My father used to tell me stories of how lipstick manufacturers were ordered, not asked, to make bullets during World War II. Harley-Davidson produced only military motorcycles at that time, and the auto manufacturers made tanks.
But back then no one complained, because we all felt America was threatened and everyone had to do their part.
Is the same true today?
Will wiretapping save us from the enemy?
All I know is that Sept. 11, 2001, didn't happen for lack of a wiretap. Rather it was a lack of something far more low-tech, a willingness on the part of the various government agencies to share information. Even the CIA and FBI have now admitted that.
Nevertheless, that is not the real problem.
The problem is that the government thinks analog. It thinks it can solve today's security issues by using the same old-fashioned concepts that were used 50 years ago.
But we, the people, know we are in a digital age, and we understand that technology makes the idea of government snooping a very complex issue.
Communications are now so varied that a single law to permit the government to tap your POTS line can be used to tap into your VoIP calls, your collaborative Wiki conversations, IMs, e-mails, and all the social networking programs you will ever sign up for.
Will MySpace and FaceBook be asked to put in filters that look for key words the government thinks are suspect? We already know that Uncle Sam asked Google to reveal what their customers were searching for in order to track down pedophiles.
What will the government do with the millions of bytes of information it can now gather?
By monitoring the history of your searches and running it against a predictive analytics engine, the government will be able to determine that there is a better than 90 percent likelihood you will commit some kind of crime or sabotage. Maybe, as in the movie Minority Report, it will arrest people pre-emptively. The scary thing is the government could be right sometimes, but does that mean we should go ahead with the program?
In a sense, it is already happening. Not in terms of actual arrests, but certainly still pre-emptive action against assumed future behaviors: In addition to the telecom companies and the search engine companies, the Feds are also asking for the cooperation of the airline industry so that if the government suspects you might do something, you're put on a "no fly" list.
When the Feds finally go high-tech, an alert might be sent out that pops up on every computer screen in the nation with a picture and last known address of a perpetrator of some past or future crime.
Perhaps the real issue here is that we have yet to truly reconcile 21st century technology and its capabilities with our 18th century credo, the Bill of Rights. We need to gain a better understanding of how to make the new conform to the old. At least that would be preferred to the other way around.
Posted by Ephraim Schwartz on August 28, 2007 03:00 AM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-

- COMMENTS
The primary reason that governments exist at all is to provide for the common defense and to support society (us). It is well established through actions and words that we have enemies actively seeking to do us harm, and the government is obliged to do what it can to stop them.
Posted by: Jim Stead at August 28, 2007 07:35 AMActually, the government is obliged NOT to do what ever it can, specifically: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Posted by: John Burns at August 28, 2007 08:26 AMI am continually stunned at the ignorance of many and the unbalanced judgement of most. Ignorance: we've been wiretapping overseas lines since very shortly after the first trans-atlantic telegraph cables were laid (by AT&T!) But more serious, we condemn our own government (which we elected) and turn a blind eye to the fact that ANY phone line can be tapped by an alien with NO CONSEQUENCE whatever. (He/she may be sent packing, if a embassy employee, but likely ignored if an illegal alien.) It is easy. Odds are very good in 99% of the apartment buildings that the guy who sweeps the floors at night has a key to the closet where all the phone lines terminate. Certainly, your yard man clips grass where your home phone line goes underground. And the cable guy puts his ladder up on the same pole where the line joins hundreds more. Trust him? Heck, you don't even know if he has a valid SSN! Sheesh! And as to wireless communications... Remember when a retired couple in FLA recorded Gingrich's cell phone with a device they picked up overseas for "amusement" (i.e. voyerism)? They were fined $2000. Imagine if they were serious bad guys??? Remember, the public airways are as public as the public streets. Want security? Before you increase legal restrictions on your own government, figure out how to make the laws already on the books effective against those who do NOT answer to our laws: criminals, alien nationals, "undocumented" (untraceable) people, etc. If you seriously think the government is out to get you, then be sure the government can hire an illegal alien to get you. What law will stop them?
Posted by: KarlQuick at August 28, 2007 12:30 PMWe in the US must uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. They don't get a pass if they're occupying the White House.
Posted by: Mike5000 at August 29, 2007 06:05 PMI like your sane graphical security device that displays digits in a box. Is this similar in operation to a CaptCha with a hash value stored in a cookie that is downloaded to the local PC? Do you mind sharing your source for this device? I'm about to implement one discussed by William Tay in a recent article for Internet_dot_com
Thanks
re: Jim Stead. Yes we have people who want to protect us by harming us. We need to get them out of office. Re-elect noone.
Posted by: DaveZ at September 1, 2007 03:27 PMTOP STORIES
Hyperconnected users growingSteve Jobs to keynote WWDC
CSC settles kickbacks case
MS previews SMB software
What does HP-EDS really mean?
Mac Office 2008 SP1 released
HP buys EDS for $13.9 billion
Corporate IT spending slows
MS targets smartphone market
Sun to clarify JavaFX plan
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization

- Is your smaller organization ready for High Availability?
- Is system maintenance doing more harm than good?
- Virtual Test Lab Automation: Manage development infrastructure





