Inexplicably, whenever the newest, shiniest hi-tech toy is announced, nobody seems to mention one itty, bitty detail in its programming.  That is complies with the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act.  You remember, the law that requires communications providers to make sure that whatever they come out with can be easily intercepted by the government.  For your own protection, of course.

It appears that our communications giants, unfortunately, have not always been wonderful citizens of the nation.  With the competition for newiest, cooliest, shiniest toys, they big boys haven’t paid as much attention to the FBI as they have to Steve Jobs.  Want to bet that Jobs has a red telephone on his desk on his belt clip direct to Washington? 

From the New York Times :

The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that create technical obstacles to surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.

It’s almost as if they’re a part of a vast criminal conspiracy designed to prevent the government from saving us from the bad guys.  They must be punished.

Albert Gidari Jr., a lawyer who represents telecommunications firms, said corporations were likely to object to increased government intervention in the design or launch of services. Such a change, he said, could have major repercussions for industry innovation, costs and competitiveness.

“The government’s answer is ‘don’t deploy the new services — wait until the government catches up,’ ” Mr. Gidari said. “But that’s not how it works. Too many services develop too quickly, and there are just too many players in this now.”

What we have here are cross purposes.  Communications companies need to come out with something new every four months to keep us from falling asleep, while the government needs them to slow it down while they figure out how to collect every garbled word that crosses the digital divide. 

The users of these shiny new toys, of course, neither consider nor care about the government’s concern.  The chances of our being blown up by terrorists aren’t nearly as great as being viewed as Luddites by our comrades.  What?  Is that last month’s 3G phone you’re using?  Hah, you dinosaur.

The push to expand the 1994 law is the latest example of a dilemma over how to balance Internet freedom with security needs in an era of rapidly evolving — and globalized — technology. The issue has added importance because the surveillance technologies developed by the United States to hunt for terrorists and drug traffickers can be also used by repressive regimes to hunt for political dissidents.

There is nothing involved in this problem that demonstrates a concern for internet freedom.  The point of this law is that advancement of technology not outpace the ability of the government to hear our every word at will.  The concept of privacy has long been abandoned, both by the government’s doing as well as our own.  The need to intercept our emails is relative to the government’s taking a quick look at our Facebook page, where we spell out in ugly detail all the nasty things we’re doing so that we can share with our friends.

Twitter, of course, is an open book to begin with.  It’s brought voyeurism to a new depth, listening in on conversations between people you don’t know discussing whatever insipid thing they feel is crucial to be shared.  No need to worry about intercepts here; we’ve given it up on a platter.

But to the extent that there remains any impediments to the government’s immediate access, it’s unacceptable.

Under current law, if a carrier meets the industry-set standard for compliance — providing the content of a call or e-mail, along with identifying information like its recipient, time and location — it achieves “safe harbor” and cannot be fined. If the company fails to meet the standard, it can be fined by a judge or the Federal Communication Commission.

In those rare instances where we haven’t offered up our deepest thoughts to the government willingly, there’s a law to make sure that they always have their ear to the door.  As we move forward to the next shiny toy, the next technological marvel, the next game-changer, the primary concern of the United States government is that there remains a special button for them on our touch screen.  You won’t see it, but it’s there.

Years ago, the Supreme Court in Katz v. United States , the Supreme Court held that the predicate for the assertion of Fourth Amendment rights was that we had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”  If that expectation is tested by the technological prowess to intercept our every online communication, then it is not only unreasonable but absurd. 

Enjoy your Droid.  Enjoy your iPhone.  For you old-timers, enjoy your Blackberry.  And don’t worry about the government intercepting your communications.  They would never intercept our communications.  They are only interested in the bad guys, and we’re certainly not the bad guys.  Nosireebob.  Nothing to fear here.