While there are some  major problems with the government’s ability to deal with technology, sometimes these problems inure to the benefit of those favoring privacy.  From the New York Times :

The F.B.I. has been quietly laying the groundwork for years for a push to require Internet-based communications services — like Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, BlackBerry and Skype — to design their systems with a built-in way to comply with wiretap orders. On Thursday, the bureau made its first full airing of the “going dark” problem.

“Due to the revolutionary expansion of communications technology in recent years, the government finds that it is rapidly losing ground in its ability to execute court orders with respect to Internet-based communications,” said the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Valerie Caproni.

While the government has yet to settle on what exactly it wants internet communications companies to do to facilitate its ability to access our every communication at will (although it would never do that, because it would be wrong), the gist of Caproni’s testimony was that the FBI wants Congress to mandate that all internet based communications include a “back door.”

Somewhat surprisingly, her request was not met with thunderous applause.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, was one of several lawmakers who said he was likely to greet such a proposal with skepticism. Forcing Internet communications services to build in “back doors” for law enforcement surveillance, he said, would hamper innovation and create vulnerabilities for hackers and foreign governments to exploit.

“Requiring back doors in all communications systems by law runs counter to how the Internet works and may make it impossible for some companies to offer their services,” Mr. Conyers said.

Notably, Rep. Conyers’ concern wasn’t about privacy or abuse, but rather economic development and external exploitation. 

Several lawmakers of both parties raised concerns about how such a mandate would affect the competitiveness of Internet companies that operate in the United States. Still, several Republicans suggested sympathy with law enforcement officials’ fear that changing technology could hamper their ability to investigate criminals and terrorists.

Clearly, there’s potential for a political rift here, given the need for some to seek re-election on a tough-on-crime platform, while others plan to run on it’s-the-economy-stupid line. 

Regardless, the current state, and apparent development, of technologies designed to thwart hackers and protect confidences also precludes many new tech companies from giving the government what it wants; plain text versions (like on white paper in courier 12 point font, in triplicate) of all communications, no matter what medium is used, going back years.

The FBI contention is not that they seek greater powers to intercept communications, but merely that they are trying to stay afloat as technology sinks their plans.

A 1994 law requires phone companies to build their networks with the capability of immediately starting to intercept a user’s communications when the company is presented with a wiretap order. But that law does not cover Internet-based communication providers.

As a result, while they, too, are subject to court wiretap orders, they are often unable to comply, for technical reasons, when presented with one.

While unmentioned during Caproni’s testimony, my sources inside government inform me that if Congress fails to provide the FBI with the resources it needs to intercept any communication via any medium now or in the future, there are secret contingency plans to go the garage/headquarters of all developing internet communications provides and beat the living daylights out of them until they acquiesce.

For the moment, however, there might be a more valuable purpose to twitter than previously realized.