Communications providers are hard to categorize

Throughout the course of looking into the government’s creation of new legislation that would allow for expanded and more intrusive wiretapping of all Internet communications, it is clear that the initiative is largely being spear headed by federal law enforcement and national security officials.

It is also quite interesting that these officials, along with Congress, that are working on the proposed legislation have not been able to agree on how to determine or define what makes an entity a communications service provider.

Even more interesting is that the White House tends to have a clearer profile of what a communications service provider is, or at present, it would appear that way.

The White House seems to feel that any entity involved in using encrypted e-mail transmitters and social networking sites along with peer-to-peer messaging software should be targeted.

Of course, when you look at the aforementioned profiles, it is immediately apparent that company’s like Skype, Facebook and BlackBerry will most likely come under the long arm of the new wirer tapping legislation if passed and enacted.

Companies who operate servers outside the United States, according to the White House definition, will also qualify as communications service providers, thus making them part of those companies that will need to comply with the new legislation.

When questioned about the new legislation, one of the FBI’s attorneys indicated that the security community is not necessarily attempting to expand its authority, but rather to preserve their existing capability to execute the current protocols, now in place, allowing a continuation of ongoing protection of the public and national security.

This all coincides with the fact that national security officials, for quite a while, have been actively pursuing the government to give them greater latitude and control in being able to wiretap the Internet, because of the intensified activity on the part of extremists and criminals who are inclined to do more of their conversing online and not on the telephone.

It goes without saying that the proposed legislation does raise worrisome privacy concerns relative to all who use the Internet.

In the Times article, James X Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, made it clear that it seems like the national security agencies and the White House are trying to send time spiraling backward, in that they appear to want the services provided on the Internet to function in the way that telephone systems once functioned.

The United States is not the only country grappling with the matter of Internet security concerns. Over the course of this year, it has been reported that India and Saudi Arabia both threatened to extinguish all BlackBerry services, because of their governments feeling that the device’s e-mail encryption was responsible for creating a potential national security risk in their respective countries.

In light of both countries’ firm stance on eliminating BlackBerry services, RIM did concede to their demands and the two countries’ security officials complete, lawful access to Internet and smartphone data. Of course, this kind of leverage is exactly what our national security agencies are hoping to gain with the advent of the proposed legislation.

The vast majority of citizens, in the United States are probably not aware of the fact that our Internet and phone networks have been under protocols that allow for various agencies to eavesdrop as a result of the 1994 law titled the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act.

Although the wiretapping authority was amended to include digital networks and cell phones as well as the already covered copper-wire phone systems, the law falls short, according to the security agencies and the government as it still fails to cover communications service providers.

So what does this mean for you and me? Well, quite simply, nothing if we are honest, law-abiding citizens. You see, if you aren’t doing anything wrong or questionable, then ask yourself, “What do I have to fear?”

Because that’s what it really boils down to. Whether we like it, or not, the days of complete privacy, as a result of the world we live in, are over.

Thus, you and I have a choice to make. Either we accept the fact that with advanced technology there will continue to be an advancing loss of privacy, or we decide to walk away from technology and return to a time of greater simplicity where we had to physically and personally communicate with one another and not through a touch screen or keypad.

Are you living a righteous life or are you one who by virtue of your unlawful or questionable activities will become afraid of what may come to be a complete loss of privacy in the ever expanding realm of balancing information technology and national security?

Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate what you’re doing on the Internet.

- Andino Ward