Who wants the FBI looking over your shoulder as you post a message on Facebook? Nevertheless, “The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance.”

Perhaps the FBI has not seen WarGames. Lightman asks Jim what backdoors are. Jim replies, “Whenever I design a system, I always put a simple password that only I know about. That way, whenever I want to get back in, I can bypass whatever security they have added on.”

When you circumvent software security protocols, you devalue them. A Washington Post article states, “I can’t imagine a better way to kill US competitiveness in the tech sector abroad. What European, Asian, or South American will want to use a US product such as Google+ or Facebook knowing that the US government has easy access to whatever is said, shared, uploaded, or done there? This could accelerate massive migration away from predominantly American tools and networks.” Networks the FBI would have no control over.

It’s unlikely the FBI wants these companies to intentionally create a hole in their security fence. They can’t possibly think that they are the only ones who would be getting into these backdoors, can they?

Other consequences would be the increased expense of developing new communications software in the future. TechDirt concludes that “The end result won’t make it any easier for the FBI to track down real criminals, but it will put plenty of non-criminals at risk. It will do this while making things much more expensive for tech companies that want to let its users communicate.”

Maybe the FBI doesn’t understand what it means to devalue security protocols. Hackers do. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of penetrating even the most secure corporate and government networks, and you can be sure that they would consider it an appropriate challenge to find the backdoor to FBI computers.

That would be “the story” in the news—hackers love publicity.

What greater incentive do the hackers need to find and exploit these vulnerabilities that are so conveniently placed in the code? Even without purpose-built methods for law enforcement to circumvent the security built into communications software, we know plenty of instances where developers have unintentionally left security holes that were subsequently widely exploited.

Not only that, but who is legally responsible when data thieves hijack one of these back doors and steal sensitive personal data? Lawsuits would abound from social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google+) and VolP (Voice over Internet Protocol such as Google Voice and Skype) who offer interconnectivity services. This is not to mention lawsuits from text chat services such as Yahoo and AOL IM. I don’t think the FBI would want these headaches. Nor does the US government have the money to waste on attorneys defending the FBI.

Fortunately, even if this bill becomes law, the FBI is not going to have carte-blanche ability to snoop whenever it wants. Sec. 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act states, “A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.”

Does the FBI really want backdoors?

More importantly, do you?

***************************************

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

Click here to vote for President Obama’s American Jobs Act

Click here to Stop FBI Surveillance of Social Network Sites

NOTE: this article was updated on 6/14/12: with a reprint from Congressman Darrell Issa at http://keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights

Click here to ask President Obama to veto CISPA.
Mr. President, the American people are asking you to sign the Digital Bill of Rights if it is passed by Congress. However, please veto CISPA if it comes to your desk.

A Digital Citizen’s Bill of Rights

I believe that individuals possess certain fundamental rights. Government should exist to protect those rights against those who would violate them. That is the revolutionary principle at the heart of the American Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. No one should trample our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s why the Bill of Rights is an American citizen’s first line of defense against all forms of tyranny.

But where can a digital citizen turn for protection against the powerful? This question lay at the heart of the fight to stop SOPA and PIPA and keep the web open. While I do not have all the answers, the remarkable cooperation we witnessed in defense of an open Internet showed me three things. First, government is flying blind, interfering and regulating without understanding even the basics. Second, we have a rare opportunity to give government marching orders on how to treat the Internet, those who use it and the innovation it supports. And third, we must get to work immediately because our opponents are not giving up.

We need to frame a digital Bill of Rights. This is my first draft. I need your help to get this right, so I published it here in Madison for everyone to comment, criticize and collaborate. I look forward to hearing from you and continuing to work together to keep the web open.

-Congressman Darrell Issa

The Digital Bill of Rights:

1. The right to a free and uncensored Internet.

2. The right to an open, unobstructed Internet.

3. The right to equality on the Internet.

4. The right to gather and participate in online activities.

5. The right to create and collaborate on the Internet.

6. The right to freely share their ideas.

7. The right to access the Internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are.

8. The right to freely associate on the Internet.

9. The right to privacy on the Internet.

10. The right to benefit from what they create.

***************************************

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

Click here to ask President Obama to veto CISPA.

There are many variations of the idea that “Your liberty stops where my nose begins.” The basic concept served us well for many centuries—until social media came on the scene. Suddenly, my nose, the other man’s nose, are no longer the defining boundary.

Any free society must also concern itself with limits. There must be a balance between rights and duties, privileges and responsibilities, order and chaos. That balance is now being examined (tested) in the context of privacy concerns versus the “right” of authority to know about its citizens, its employees, and (surprise!) its students.

A recent case involves a 12-year-old girl who was forced to reveal the passwords to her Facebook and e-mail accounts. Without legal counsel, she was interrogated about her Facebook postings—her comments in strong language about sexual matters and treatment she received from a hall monitor.

“R.S. was intimidated, frightened, humiliated and sobbing while she was detained in the small school room” as she watched a counselor, a deputy, and another school employee pore over her private communications. The lawsuit claims that her First Amendment rights were violated by employees at Minnewaska Area Middle School, in west-central Minnesota, as well as her Fourth Amendment rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure.”

This was an unusual case, which is why it has caught national attention. Far more commonplace is the phenomena of employers, both current and prospective, learning about their employees’ actions both on and off the job by gaining access to their Facebook and other social media accounts. If the traffic occurs during working hours or on the employer’s equipment, such tracking is defensible. But more widespread and intrusive spying is common.

The framers of our Constitution could not possibly have foreseen how their work would come to bear on citizens hundreds of years in the future using a new technology. A variety of cases are working their way through the courts, and eventually we may have equitable, workable, and sensible regulations that offer protections to both parties. But in the meantime, employees, and even 12-year-old students, should employ common sense—let’s make that uncommon sense—in anything they decide to commit to a keyboard or screen.

***************************************

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

Click here to vote for President Obama’s American Jobs Act