Over a relatively short period of time, the Internet, chat services, and smartphone apps have rapidly changed the way people communicate with one another. Unfortunately, this technological burst has birthed a few negative effects — namely an increase in data security crimes. Law enforcement has responded to the risk with a request for Internet and communications companies to install “backdoors” that will allow the police access to potentially criminal conversations.

As you’d imagine, multiple interest groups are clashing over this situation.

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act Background

Much of the controversy surrounding this proposal stems from the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. This law was created in 1994 and amended in 2004 to require all telecommunications and broadband companies to provide information and assistance to law enforcement so that they would be able to tap criminals’ communications. Technology has advanced significantly over the past 8 years, extending into areas into which law enforcement cannot tap, such as VoIP, e-mail, and instant messaging. As these new forms of communication became more and more mainstream, law enforcement officials became increasingly concerned. They expressed this concern in a brief during the Summer of 2008 in which they outlined the problem.

The FBI’s Argument To Extend CALEA

The FBI’s director, Robert Muller, briefed a group of senators about what he referred to as “Going Dark.” This presentation asserted that without extending CALEA’s sphere of influence, the FBI’s surveillance abilities would continue to decline as criminals used more secure media for illegal communication.

FBI officials claim that “going dark” would increase public safety and national security risks and that the government must extend CALEA in an effort to force companies that provide video and/or voice chat services online to add backdoors to their service products. These backdoors would allow law enforcement officials access to previously private correspondences that currently could not be collected as evidence.

Part of the National Electronic Surveillance Strategy

This piece of legislation is only one part of what the Bureau calls the “National Electronic Surveillance Strategy.” Over a hundred full time employees have been working on various aspects of this technological problem, trying to devise ways of at least keeping up with tech savvy individuals looking to circumvent security measures. The FBI contends that extending CALEA in this way is not illegal or untoward, since wiretapping is legal today.

Many people, however, do not agree with the FBI, and even White House representatives have been reluctant to push this proposal full strength. Other groups are less than enthusiastic about the CALEA extension because each group feels threatened by the proposal’s potential results.

The Feds Are Promising Money To Solve The Problem (Creating Even More Of A Problem?)

Large trade associations and online businesses fear the passing of such a proposal would damage their business models and their bottom lines. Adding these backdoors would require the writing and implementation of new computer coding as well as additional security to guard against security breaches by hackers. Businesses will have to pay coders to write and secure the new code, which will cost more money than most online associations can afford. Some government proponents of this proposal have promised money to consider the additional costs that companies will have to pay when implementing the CALEA extension, but how much the government actually cares about reducing these costs remains an object of skepticism for many businesses.

Security Concerns

Companies are also afraid of the potential security threat to trade secrets and confidential exchanges. Some of them argue that a sufficiently skilled hacker could break in through a backdoor and steal personal information from a business. Others fear that secret business information could come out at trials and hearings in which the information in and of itself that is revealed is not illegal. Some businesspeople who mistrust the government fear that the government itself will exploit the backdoors and will use them to illegally gather information on law-abiding citizens. Apple, Microsoft, and other such companies are carefully monitoring this proposal, not wanting to be caught unawares by any surprise legislation.

Customers Are Leary Of “The Man;” CALEA Is Seen As Bad Business

Online communication services also worry about clients’ reactions to the new measures. Communication users want to be assured their conversations and communications are free from prying eyes. Moreover, many consumers are outwardly opposed to various efforts at policing and controlling the Internet. As such, opposing the CALEA extension is simply good business for many tech companies.

The Main CALEA Problem: Tempering Security With Privacy

Many understand the need for a CALEA extension, but still express concerns; they understand the FBI’s dilemma, but also want assurance that their correspondences will not be monitored when they have not broken the law. They want to believe that their Skype conversations are not being listened to by a third party, that their e-mails remain private, and that the rather inappropriate conversations they may have via their Xbox 360s will not be made public. These people understand there’s an element of privacy risk in using technology, but don’t look kindly on exacerbating that risk via government statutes.

Do Freeware And Open Source Platforms Automatically Draw The Short Straw If CALEA Extension Passes?

Another concern to some is the potential fates of freeware and open source communication service providers that do not charge fees for their services. Will this law force them to write potentially costly and difficult code, all while alienating clients? Could potential new communication services be forced to wait for government approval before launching? The uncertainty behind the proposal bothers some more than the proposal itself.

Some also express worry that these new rules could stifle creativity in those who are creating the next technologically advanced communication methods; nobody wants to be responsible for hindering the American ingenuity for which the country has long been known.

Will The CALEA Extension Pass? What Does That Mean?

With so many people concerned about the CALEA extension proposal, its future remains uncertain. Will the FBI be granted the permission (and the means) to tap what was once inaccessible, or will business representatives and citizens present enough resistance to the piece of legislation that it will be rejected and discarded? Internet consumer awareness of perceived government interference is at an all time high, and big businesses that possess large amounts of money are not going to quietly embrace this proposal. Law enforcement, however, also has some friends in high places who will lobby in support of the potential law in an attempt to get it passed.

Regardless of the specific outcome of this proposed piece of legislation, law enforcement, citizens, and businesses are going to continue to clash and argue over the best ways to handle the issues that arise from new technological advances and development. As each party seeks to do what is best for its own interests, all will have to reach some sort of compromise that will allow such efforts to move forward. Technology is only going to continue to advance, and the possibilities of Internet services are limited only by the creativity of their designers. The government will have to figure out how to curtail lawbreakers without curtailing liberty, businesses will have to figure out how to allow freedom of expression to law-abiding users without granting freedom to criminals, and consumers will have to use caution while communicating on an Internet that simultaneously promises and reduces privacy.