[Previous entry: "Charging the innocent for the years they were wrongly imprisoned"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Miss Fitz's Gun Guide, Part II (shopping for a sidearm)"]

03/16/2004 Archived Entry: "Feds want new web-tapping powers"


Service providers - not the government - would be asked to pick up the costs of any necessary modifications. The proposals allow ISPs to pass on these expenses to consumers.

New services that resisted police eavesdropping would be prohibited and suppliers would have just 15 months to build law enforcement backdoors into existing services.

Critics say the proposed regime will complicate Internet product development. There are also concerns about the scope of the proposals (as applied to data networks) and a perceived lack of safeguards against abuse.

How come these articles always mention "safeguards," as if that would make everything okay? How can you possibly have any "safeguard" that would compensate for a federal citizen-surveillance apparatus that has the power to forbid businesses to develop new products and the power to force industry to customize its existing products to the specifications of the KGB or the Stasi?

Posted by Claire @ 08:26 AM CST

Powered By Greymatter