The way it's presented in the article reminds me just a little bit of the various excuses and rationales that I occasionally hear from abortionists and certain genetic scientists who, when asked about whether they think what they do is right or wrong they reply that it's not their job to concern themselves with such things; that's the job of lawmakers and legislators....essentially the "we don't care because we don't have to" defense. It's a terribly convenient, lazy person's way of passing the buck on an important question, and I'm disheartened although not surprised that this would be their stance.
Even so, I'm kind of torn on how to view this one myself. If you send a postcard, open for anyone to read, you can't very well get pissed if they do. But is internet traffic more akin to a postcard or a letter, which they had better damn well have a good reason for opening? I guess we'd even be mad about reading post cards if the post office put a guy on the payroll to stand there and read every one.
As I'm sure you know, Postcards aren't First Class mail and aren't priced as such....also, the very format of them clearly indicates that it's for informal, offhand and non-mission-sensitive information. First Class mail on the other hand is an entirely different animal. It's a sealed, secure envelope and you're paying premium postage for it. There is a very clear expectation of privacy and security associated with it that has been upheld by law enforcement for centuries. The US Post Office takes security of the mail very seriously:
When the million-dollar Hope Diamond was donated to the Smithsonian Institution, it was mailed from New York City to Washington, D.C., in a brown paper parcel.
It's my belief that people want very much to have a similar security of First Class Mail associated with email and internet traffic. They are already paying a monthly fee to the ISP for the internet service, they have given lots of personal and financial information to the ISP which they expect to be kept confidential. People have an expectation that for a paid service as this, that a respect be given to them and the transmissions that they engage in.
Techies understand all too well how unreasonable such expectations are given the nature of the technologies involved, but people want security nonetheless.
I think there needs to be a lot more use of encryption. The problem is that's it's so little used now that it could form an index of suspicion in and of itself. So I think someone needs to get a push on to encrypt a significant portion of traffic, say 30% or more, so the mere fact of encryption isn't viewed with suspicion
Sounds like a good idea, although I wonder how secure most forms of publicly-available encryption are anymore. For years it's been required of any company that develops an encryption mechanism that a key for it be given to law enforcement (I think it's typically the NSA, if my memory serves, which it often does not). When one combines the fact that law enforcement will have a key coupled with things like Carnivore, I'm not so sure that publicly-available encryption will do much except guard against non-governmental spying and making the users feel more secure, which of course all has value anyhow..
Essentially the Soviet position. If the government wants something you have to do it regardless of any moral framework you have, because if the government wants it, it must be right, right?
I get pissed when private companies have some kind of industrial accident and disclaim responsibility because their procedures met minimum government regs. Do they really want to take the position that government bureaucrats are better qualified than people who work in the industry to know the best way to deal with hazards??? I don't want excessive regulation by people who have never done it (and are often selected from the enemies of the industry) but by the same token, you can't have it both ways.