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 rule messages. The Clinton administration believes a better way to provide for our public guard is by requiring technology that scrambles electronic data for privacy reasons to contain a lark 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 odour among the people of constant supervision.   According to government officials, entry to scrambled data is needed for national security and law-enforcement. On the contrary, the trapdoor feature back tooth 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 necessary to allow immediate decodin g 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 Br some other 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. contradictory 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 communications.   Government officials claim requiring the decoding technology doesnt necessarily mean using the technology. First, if use isnt 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 wont necessarily be spent. Finally, the only motivation to require scientific 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 wouldnt necessarily be used. Requiring decoding technology stipulates full intent for use.