Skybird
09-27-10, 04:36 PM
In the name of security, of course. National interest has nothing to do with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,719843,00.html
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html
Not only is this worrying in itself, but that Washington wants to force foreign IT comnpanies that do not even do business inside America to open at least one office in America so that they fall under the new legislation and must open access to the Americans to monitor their customer'S communications, is deeply worrying, megalomaniac, and displays an attitude that claims to have the right to dominate all the world.
But as this blog points out
http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/26/feds-want-to-expand-wiretapping-to-include-mobile-email-and-social-networks/
such a global centralised interface for control access automatically would mean to be a highly attractive and vulnerable attack target for hackers as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,719843,00.html
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html
Not only is this worrying in itself, but that Washington wants to force foreign IT comnpanies that do not even do business inside America to open at least one office in America so that they fall under the new legislation and must open access to the Americans to monitor their customer'S communications, is deeply worrying, megalomaniac, and displays an attitude that claims to have the right to dominate all the world.
But as this blog points out
http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/26/feds-want-to-expand-wiretapping-to-include-mobile-email-and-social-networks/
such a global centralised interface for control access automatically would mean to be a highly attractive and vulnerable attack target for hackers as well.