In a society so saturated with technology as ours is it is hard to realize the power mega-conglomerate “dot coms” have. Web sites that link us to the Internet, like Google, and social networks, like Facebook, have the ability to exploit the masses at whim. Not only does the Patriot Act make this legal, with out a legal warrant, both corporations are more than willing to release private information to the government with the only reason being “suspicion”. Undoubtedly we have come far from the tyranny of the feudal system, yet at the same time we seem to be slipping further and further into the realm of totalitarian monitoring and government-conglomerate monopolies on information. It's starting to seem like the government simply is unable to regulate itself and need the help of corporations. Our private emails and personal information is available for government perusal and protests are being silenced with Gestapo-esque speed. Does this new rush to exploit mean that even the Internet is no longer untouchable? Or is it merely a setback in the information revolution?

Google and Facebook, supposedly at the forefront of Web Development, are growing into powerful corporations that know no bounds. If we continue to turn the other eye while these companies monopolize the Internet and our personal information, there is no possibility of ever being able to change their access to anyone, anywhere, any time. Other companies like Twitter are expecting to make profit from selling data about its users to other companies. In a recent article Ron Callari is claiming that cash-hungry Twitter is already selling access to its data (Callari). Other articles have been written discussing the extent of control companies like this exert and the lengths they will go to aid the government in censoring outspoken individual who are seen as a “cyber-threat” to homeland security. Often times they report on an FBI or CIA monitoring, aided by the use on information freely provided by Google and Facebook, unknown to the victim. Due to the fact that now day everything is digitalized, a phone call can be intercepted at various points along its path (Whitfield Diffie). Terrorists have become savvier. They’ve learned not to discuss sensitive matters by telephone. They use couriers and shared e-mail accounts to send messages instead. But, more important, there is simply far too much information for authorities to wade through. The reams of data that modern society generates hide key points. Increasing the number of wiretaps often just increases the size of the haystack, making the needle that much harder to find. Niels C. Sorrells wrote an article about the lessons United States can learn from Germany. Germany is a nation with a quarter of the United States population and yet they have seven times more wiretaps (Sorrells). The interesting part is that there are absolutely no results from all this surveillance. Based on the Germany’s experience it should make one wonder is there any hope for United States. This leaves us with the question – How far will it go? Well, how far has it gone already? How much information do you post, how many emails do you save? Do we really have to live in a society where our personal information can be exploited and sold to the highest bidder? If a government official needs a subpoena to obtain records and a warrant to search your house, shouldn’t the same be for your email accounts and social network profiles? At the very least notification is mandatory.

The reason that this is possible is due to the fact that you are using a company’s web page, network, etc, and it is theirs to release however they please. Google even informs you that they can use any information in your Gmail any was that they see fit. Now, I am not contending the usefulness of Google, I am contending the amount of power we allow them to have as a corporation, because, yes, we are the ones who allow them to have it. Our inability to see through the haze of our iPhones to the millions of people who have access to anything we might write, say and even think is making these corporations more powerful. Every part of our personal lives has the potential to be picked over by the corporations we utilize and the government at only the slightest provocation, despite our right to privacy. The interception and exploitation of communications has three basic components: accessing the signal, collecting the signal, and exfiltrating the signal. There are reports that government agencies are over a hundred data-mining efforts which resemble the controversial Total Information Awareness project, which was intended to peruse x amount bytes of data on Americans assembled from every source possible as a means to snare terrorists (McCullagh). Access may come through alligator clips, a radio, or a computer program. Almost all corporations and governments easily have this ability. The surveillance we are attempting to build may increase security in some ways, but it also creates serious risks in a network infrastructure that supports all of society. Given the importance of the Internet to society—and given the importance the network has in communications between people and their friends, governments and their citizens, businesses and their customers, and in all of society—communications security is critical, and that should take precedence in the debate over communications security versus communications surveillance. The United States should think twice before adopting the false security blanket that more surveillance means more success in fighting terror. Public monitoring needs to appear at the forefront of web use before we are just consumers, constantly monitored by a government aided by the likes of Google and Facebook.

Recently I learned about a 22-year old programmer investigated by the FBI for “helping put public documents onto the public web” (Singel). Besides that fact that I don’t see anything wrong with what he did what concerned me the most was the way he was investigated. Taking advantage of their power FBI ran his name through every government database, checked his Facebook page, checked to see if his phone number had ever come up in a federal wiretap and on top of that Amazon conveniently provided all their records about the programmer. After two months of silent investigation the feds finally approached him to let him know he is being investigated. So the big question I am asking myself is how do we know if FBI or as a matter of fact any government organization is not investigating us for something that is not even illegal.

Not only is this kind of exploitation unethical, it is also illegal and falls under the category of entrapment. Because someone who is monitored by the government using their Internet history doesn’t know that they are being observed and are uniformed of the purpose, the legal liability for the government is greater than for the individual. Ultimately this is not about searching for terrorists or tax evaders, this is about maintaining the element of fear in the population and keeping the people submissive to the governments and corporations that obtain all the power. This also creates a huge gap in the leadership of our current democracy, giving the power to companies like Google, who make enough money to buy Politicians and Public Officials. But we still have the power and this is the key, all companies make money off of us as consumers and we have the ability to stop them from being able to share our information with the government by use of letter and notifications, as well as simply not using them.

Perhaps the people at Microsoft and the spokeswoman for Internet Explorer are trying to gain customers by criticizing firefox’s growing market, or maybe this pretentious critique of Mozilla’s “interesting math” is meant to bring back what little customers they do have, but the fact is Internet Explorer’s audience is deteriorating into the decrepit and technologically challenged. One might say that the real reason that Microsoft is so skeptical of Mozilla’s browser is that they can’t comprehend an innovative browser that actually does deliver a sophisticated rendering engine that is always kept updated. All IE has to offer is that it comes with any PC running Windows and has attempted to be synonymous with the Internet among those who use technology and computers for minimalist reasons. The average online bingo player might be satisfied with the limited features that IE6, or any other Internet Explorer version, provides, but for the rest of the world, IE6 is not useful and, frankly, is a pain in the ass to operate and work with. Despite being extremely slow, the support for add-ons and the speed that you are able to open web pages with are limited and you feel as if you are browsing on your parents maximum controlled version of the Internet. Internet Explorer seems to have lost touch with what the internet is all about; freedom to read, watch and listen to whatever you want, as well as the ability to easily access the largest database of knowledge there is.

Internet Explorer’s limits only prolong the struggle to get another browser, one that is most likely firefox. The retaliation observed after Mozilla announced its one-billionth download, as well as the skepticism that ensued is merely a ploy to recover Internet Explorer’s long lost market base.