Does Obama want to tap your computer?

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/does-obama-want-tap-your-computer-027

As conspiracy theories go, this one's a doozy. It seems the Obama Administration is secretly trying to turn your computer into a surveillance tool by inducing you to trade in your old car.

If that doesn't sound completely loony to you, then you're probably a fan of Glenn Beck. In a five-minute segment broadcast last Friday

Cash for Clunkers is over, and that was the source of this conspiracy theory. Both have faded out and are gone...

It's important to fight the lies. The language used on this site is language used across many government sites and that's still relevant.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/obama-plan-own-your-pc-part-deux-181

Well, that didn't take long. My post earlier this week ("Does Obama want to tap your computer?") generated a swarm of responses, some of them calling for my head. Whenever you take on folks like Glenn Beck and Fox News, that's pretty much what you're in for.

But I wanted to correct a few things I got wrong and clarify a few other points -- hence this "special follow-up" post.

First, as several Cringesters noted, I was wrong about the phrase "your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the United States Government" appearing on other sites for years. That language is apparently new. Mea culpa.

The other language about uses of the federal system being monitored, intercepted, recorded, audited, etc. is a standard part of many government Web sites, however, like it or not. (I don't actually like it, though I understand why it's there.)

Cringester C. B. notes the warning banner that's caused all this fuss is a requirement of the Federal Information Security Management Act. Ironically enough, the security specs for federal Web sites were approved yesterday, though drafts of it have been kicking around since at least 2005. However, nowhere in the 236-page NIST Special Publication 800-53 does that "your computer is now our computer" language appear.

Is this language scary? Sure, if you really believe the feds seriously want to impound the computers of thousands of Americans. Otherwise, it just looks like a rather unfortunate choice of language. And in fact, that's what it seems to be.

"A security warning on the cars.gov dealer support page that stated computers logged into the system were considered property of the Federal Government has been removed. We are working to revise the language. The language was posted on the portion of the website accessible by car dealers and not the general public."

After I posted my entry, the U.S. Department of Transportation told reporters at PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter that...

"It would be factually inaccurate to say that any computer that went to cars.gov would become the property of the U.S. government," said Sasha Johnson, a DOT spokeswoman.

<snip>

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Hugh D'Andrade notes that the Cash for Clunkers terms of service definitely overreached, as many EULAs do, but not as badly as Fox News' coverage of it. He writes:

Clicking "continue" on a poorly worded Terms of Service on a government site will not give the government the ability to "tap into your system... any time they want." The seizure of the personal and private information stored on your computer through a one-sided click-through terms of service is not “conscionable” as lawyers say, and would not be enforceable even if the cars.gov website was capable of doing it, which we seriously doubt. Moreover, the law has long forbidden the government from requiring you to give up unrelated constitutional rights (here the 4th Amendment right to be free from search and seizure) as a condition of receiving discretionary government benefits like participation in the Cars for Clunkers program.

<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/obama-plan-own-your-pc-part-deux-181

all electronic communications that go through major telcom switching hubs are automatically diverted to NSA, where they are stored for possible use by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. All non-personal identifier data is available for datamining by federal agencies without FISA warrants. All messages going over national borders are also subject to interception and analysis without individual warrants.

Welcome to the Brave New World of universal surveillance. You should no longer have any expectation of privacy in your electronic communications.

Beck's an idiot because he understates the nature of the threat to privacy.

if they were to (or have) put a snooper in Windows, who would know? Why don't the loons worry about this, which is a lot more feasible than Beck's fantasy.