Agencies like the NSA are currently able to eavesdrop on anyone with few restrictions only - though other messages are spread by the NSA.
Theoretically cryptography can make that difficult. Hence those agencies speak up for actions like introducing trapdoors to make it possible to get access to everybody's data.
See the U.S. discussion about the Clipper Chip some years ago:
While encryption offers us privacy for the transmission of data, we do not only wish to have it but also need it if we want to transport data which shall not be seen by anyone else but the recipient of our message. Given this, the governments and governmental institutions/organizations fear to lose control. Strict laws are the consequence. The often repeated rumor that the Internet was a sphere of illegality has been proven wrong. Some parts are controlled by law very clearly. One of them is cryptography. Prohibition of cryptography or at least its restriction are considered an appropriate tool against criminality. Or one should say: had been considered that. In the meantime also governmental institutions have to admit that those restrictions most of all work against the population instead against illegal actors. Therefore laws have been changed in many states during the last five years. Even the USA, the Master of cryptography-restriction, liberated its laws in December 1999 to be more open-minded now.
for an insight into the discussion having gone on for years see:
the final text of the new U.S. Encryption Regulations you will find under:
an explanation of the regulations can be found under:
TEXTBLOCK 1/2 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611776/100438659102
Although the traditional media companies first steps into the digital sphere were fairly clumsy, they have quickly learned from their mistakes and continued to enlarge their Internet presence.
During the last years many of the smaller players in the field of digital media have been driven out of competition by the huge media conglomerates. This mainly is a result of the advantages that the commercial media giants have over their less powerful counterparts:
- As engagement in online activities mostly does not lead to quick profits, investors must be able to take losses, which only powerful companies are able to.
- Traditional media outlets usually have huge stocks of digital programming, which they can easily plug into the Internet at little extra cost.
- To generate audience, the big media conglomerates constantly promote their Websites and other digital media products on their traditional media holdings.
- As possessors of the hottest "brands" commercial media companies often get premier locations from browser software makers, Internet service providers, search engines and portals.
- Having the financial resources at their disposition the big media firms are aggressive investors in start-up Internet media companies.
Commercial media companies have close and long ties to advertisers, which enables them to seize most of these revenues.
TEXTBLOCK 2/2 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611795/100438659167
One of the world's largest corporate entities in sales, consisting of companies in more than 100 countries, whose shares are owned by NV Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij (Royal Dutch Petroleum Company Ltd.) of The Hague and by the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company, PLC, of London. Below these two parent companies are two holding companies, Shell Petroleum NV and the Shell Petroleum Company Limited, whose shares are owned 60 percent by Royal Dutch and 40 percent by "Shell" Transport and Trading. The holding companies, in turn, hold shares in and administer the subsidiary service companies and operating companies around the world, which engage in oil, petrochemical, and associated industries, from research and exploration to production and marketing. Several companies also deal in metals, nuclear energy, solar energy, coal, and consumer products.
RTMark is a group of culture jammers applying a brokerage-system that benefits from "limited liability" like any other corporation. Using this principle, RTMark supports the sabotage (informative alternation) of corporate products, from dolls and children's learning tools to electronic action games, by channelling funds from investors to workers. RTMark searches for solutions that go beyond public relations and defines its "sbottom line" in improving culture. It seeks cultural and not financial profit.