The Obama plan to own your PC, part deux

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.

[ Read the InfoWorld post that started this debate: “Does Obama want to tap your computer?” | Stay up to date on Robert X. Cringely’s musings and observations with InfoWorld’s Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]

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 [PDF] 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.

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

“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.”

“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.

Of course, the Beckheads can now crow about how they made the Obamaniacs back down from their Stalinesque plans for a new totalitarian state. There’s not enough tin foil in the world to cover all those noggins. The fact remains this was a nutty idea from the get-go, scary language or not.

Then again, maybe I’m just a secret agent of the Obama government, out to control your brain, as reader M. C. G. seems to believe (all capitals are his):

YOU, sir, are precisely the reason why this country is in such a mess. YOU appear to believe that THE GOVERNMENTS [Federal, state or local] somehow have the ultimate answer to everything and can make everything better if the citizens will only bow down and submit.

(Though I have to wonder: Where were all these champions of individual freedom when the previous administration was placing actual wiretaps on actual phones, sans warrant or other legal justification? Why are theoretical threats to your rights scarier than real violations of it?)

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.

Again, per PolitiFact:

Although Beck began his segment by noting that the warning was on a part of the site for dealers, Guilfoyle then distorted the truth by suggesting it applied to members of the general public coming to the site for information about Cash for Clunkers. The allegations escalated as she and Goldberg issued warnings about anyone even typing in that address at home. And that’s just wrong.

Had she said from the start that this just applied to dealers completing transactions, we might be more generous in our ruling. But we think anyone who saw the July 31 program — in which she claimed “seriously, they can get all your information” — would be left with the clear impression that anyone who logged into the cars.gov site was opening their computer to Big Brother. And that’s False.

For the record, I’m not a fan of Big Government. I’m also not crazy about the lack of privacy protection at work; I merely pointed out that such restrictions are common. And my editors lunge for the Maalox whenever I veer even close to political topics. But there’s a lot of paranoia and misinformation out there, and I felt compelled to try and correct some of it.

Don’t like it? That’s fine, it’s a free country. And yes, it’s still a free country, despite what the bobbleheads say.

But I know some of you still want to argue, so go ahead. Post your bouquets and brickbats below, or e-mail me: cringe@infoworld.com.

Related content

Does Obama want to tap your computer?

Rumors that Uncle Sam wants to use our own computers to spy on us are raging across the blogosphere. Fortunately, they’re not true, no matter what Glenn Beck says