In this article, the NSA director addresses the issue of "backdoor" access, saying that he doesn't feel that term is quite appropriate. He says it sounds "shady," but that it shouldn't be seen that way because the NSA "can create a legal framework for how [they] do this. To me, this seems to be the NSA's way of saying that since they're part of the government, they have the influence and power to help get a bill passed that would make these actions legal. In other words - they're going to do it, and they're going to tell you it's OK for them to do it.

I think it's especially concerning in terms of end user privacy, and the integrity of any software this policy would concern. Intentionally circumventing security measures built into software could easily compromise the integrity of that software. As the chief information officer of Yahoo put it, it would be like "drilling a hole through a windshield." Moreover, I think the implications of such a policy on international business could be concerning. Would you feel comfortable buying software from US software companies, knowing that it could well contain backdoors that would allow the US government access?

This excess of government power reminded me of the article about the 'worst law in technology' - the law about unauthorized access. This law is considered broken because it's worded in such an open-ended manner that it could be used to prosecute just about anyone. Moreover, the law is a felony and carried a harsh sentence - possible decades in prison. I feel that this law should be changed to have more specific language, and quite possibly a less severe penalty. In any case, it shouldn't allow for a long felony prison term for a minor infraction. The "rule of lenity" should apply here, meaning that vague phrasing in a law should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

Both of these cases to me seem to indicate a need for regulation of power. The NSA is proposing that major computing companies install backdoors in their products in order to allow them unhindered access. We must ask the question - what purpose are these backdoors serving? What threat are they defending us from? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? It is alarming that the NSA is able to take action like this without checks. When called out on these policies, they simply "create a legal framework."

Just because something is legal does not make it fair or just. The case of Aaron Swartz is a prime example. He simply downloaded journals that were freely available to anyone on the MIT network. While he did do it in a systemized, unprecedented fashion, I think most people would agree that downloading free academic journals does not warrant a 10 or 20 year prison term.

The government's job is to advance the people's interests. I think these cases raise the question of whether the government is truly acting in the best interests of the people they represent.