FBI Vs. Silicon Valley: The Fine Line Between Privacy and National Security

The fine line between safety and privacy has been debated continuously the past 10 years especially with the technological innovations in counter intelligence. On Tuesday Robert Mueller III and other Federal Bureau of Investigation leaders met with top executives of the leaders in technology. Mueller and his entourage are trying to seek support for legislation widening wiretapping laws and capabilities for government agencies such as the FBI. This would include imposing laws of the 1994 Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to Internet companies such as Facebook and Google.

The original 1994 law requires phone companies such as Verizon Wireless to have the capabilities to immediately comply with government officials when a court wiretapping order has been issued. The new changes to the law would include Internet technology companies that offer communication capabilities to its users. This is very important because it is getting much easier for people throughout the world to communicate with each other using everyday Internet websites like Facebook chat and Gmail chat. There could be a huge weakness in national counter-terrorism efforts if government agencies and Internet companies do create the technological infrastructure capable of spying on people who are global threat.

I think that this would be a good law to implement to keep countries safe throughout the world. It is crucial to intercept or hinder the way terrorists and criminals communicate in order to eradicate their destructive behaviors.

Many people around the world oppose a law that would allow their respective governments to act almost like a “big brother” and have ironically created a Facebook page to gain support of their beliefs. In my opinion if you are doing nothing wrong then there is nothing to hide, making this a necessary and proactive way to keep the world safe.

There are a few problems that can arise from a law such as this:

1. What criminal acts are going to be prosecuted using these technologies? Will the 16 year old high school student who sends a Facebook message about getting high last night be subject to criminal penalties. I think it is very important for this law to only be used for matters of national/global security and crimes that largely affect other people. It should not be used to prosecute petty crimes such as underage drinking.

2. The information gathered must not be used for any other purpose, and must protected extremely well. This information would be private and drastic steps must be in place to keep this material safe.

3. Under what guidelines are people or groups considered to be a threat and then added to the list of people who the government will monitor.

I agree with what the FBI is doing and believe that our safety is one of if not the most important goal for government agencies. However, it is crucial to create concrete laws around the idea of expanding the 1994 law because if there are not concrete laws, bad precedents can be set effecting our personal privacy for years to come.