Encryption - Regulation of Devices That Code Messages is Not Necessary :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

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 communicat ions. 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.