Regulation of Devices That Code Messages is Not Necessary
Legislation has been proposed to regulate devices that code messages. The Clinton administration believes a better way to provide for our public safety is by requiring technology that scrambles electronic data for privacy reasons to contain a feature that would allow immediate decoding of any message, known as a trapdoor feature. The capability to monitor encrypted, private communications, however, does not yield greater public safety since it would create feeling among the people of constant supervision.
According to government officials, access to scrambled data is needed for national security and law-enforcement. On the contrary, the trapdoor feature can work against law-enforcement, supplying criminals with an additional entry point to access and view private communications. Purchases made over the internet, including secure credit card numbers, would be required to allow immediate decoding when the feature is accessed. Second, personal privacy would be compromised since no one could tell if they were being watched at any given moment. The feeling that "Big Brother" is watching would always exist. Finally, the trapdoor feature could weaken national security on account of this feature simplifying the means of viewing securely encrypted messages. Foreign nations might be able to exploit the trapdoor feature and intercept classified military and intelligence transmissions. For these reasons, the government does not need to create an easier way to access private communications.
Government officials claim requiring the decoding technology doesn't necessarily mean using the technology. First, if use isn't intended then the technology would never have been developed. Time, money, and other resources are only spent by people who intend to do something. Second, intent for technology required yet inactive is ludicrous. This is as absurd as walking up to a stranger on the street, demanding a $100 bill, and, when they balk at the idea, replying that it won't necessarily be spent. Finally, the only motivation to require technological features is the availability for use. No one would have gone to the trouble to make a proposition without the intent of use. The feature would have been a proposed option in technology if it wouldn't necessarily be used. Requiring decoding technology stipulates full intent for use.
Law-enforcement officials would be required to have a wiretap order from a court to utilize the feature. Humans, however, are susceptible to corruption and power tends to corrupt. While the people in charge of facilitating access to the trapdoor features should be virtuous, they would still be human and open to temptation to allow unauthorized access when persuaded. Oftentimes regulations are ignored and actions overlooked. Illegal activities and coverups are cited occurring in every type of institution, but no other would have as much surveillance capability. The decryption supervisors will be no exception. In addition, creation of additional potential entry points only makes protecting all of them more difficult. A hacker, or one who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations, could easily try to steal information like credit card numbers during transactions over the Internet. Nothing is completely secure from a breach in security. The fact is that a court order can't stop a determined person from illegally accessing the feature.
In conclusion, the claim that public safety is increased by requiring a device to allow immediate decoding of any message is preposterous. The government doesn't need to create instant access to private communications, technology is always designed for a purpose, and the requirement of a court order doesn't necessarily mean that it will prevent all unauthorized access. The trapdoor feature is not as beneficial to our public safety as the Clinton administration would like for us to believe.
Partner sites: Spanish school Costa Rica, Skin Cancer, and Free Essays and Term Papers