(reuters)
The Washington Post reports on this request here.
The article goes on to point out exactly how bad of an idea this is:
If information isn’t flowing through a central server, then the only way to intercept it is to add surveillance software to the user’s PC. But popular software is constantly being probed by hackers seeking vulnerabilities they can exploit. The more complex a system, the more likely programmers are to make mistakes that could provide hackers with an opening. And surveillance features are particularly dangerous, the researchers argue.
Perhaps the most serious concern the researchers point to is the danger a wiretapping mandate could pose to national security. Many government agencies use the same communications software as do private firms. Which means that wiretapping mandates could make the software the government itself uses less secure.
This kind of surveillance doesn't seem to have any limits. As the article points out, even most online videogames have built-in communications capabilities. So where do you draw the line? Are your TeamSpeak chats or my FarCry 3 multiplayer sessions going to be listened in on now? I'd hate to be that poor FBI agent stuck listening to the audio feed from Call of Duty in which a bunch of angry 12-year-olds start cussing each other out over spawn-camping. In all seriousness though, isn't that taking it a little too far?
When you create a back door, you can put a lock on it. You can put 50 locks on it. You can put 100 locks on it. But hackers are not going to stop until they figure out a way to open that door. Some of the most security-savvy organizations in the world still get hacked, and it happens pretty routinely. Opening up everyone's computers to a potential attack is no way to go about securing those users.
