--- From: "Danny Yavuzkurt" <ayavuzkat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: The other shoe drops: White House now proposing centralized Internet monitoring Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 05:03:53 -0500 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet Aha.. so, we wondered what good TIA will be without good databases, and with the commercial databases so lacking in accuracy and realtime data?.. well, according to a report recently finalized by the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, called, naturally, "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," the solution isn't to use just 'existing databases' as IAO was claiming, but creating new, larger databases out of all the network traffic in the country (along with the building of a huge national 'network operations center,' presumably to store the petabytes of data such a system might conceivably accumulate.. that is, if they're actually going to be archiving net traffic and datamining it, which I would assume is their goal..) The article doesn't specifically mention IAO or TIA, but it's transparently obvious to me that the Bush administration knows exactly what's going on with DARPA and IAO, are probably actively sponsoring them, and intends to make it easier than ever for them to monitor and store surveillance data on everyone who uses the internet, in addition to all the other databases they'd have centralized archives of.. I'm betting that unless there's a large-scale public outcry against this kind of large-scale government intrusion, we'll see *all* ISPs (except possibly for BBSes, etc, which would of course still be monitored through the phone companies..) forced to register, keep records, and install government surveillance equipment - so, in effect, there could soon be no privacy from the government's prying eyes for any unencrypted data on the net, warrant or not.. In fact, I see in all of these 'security' proposals not a genuine interest in protecting the citizenry from harm, but instead a massive power grab by the executive branch, pushing the courts (which will no longer be consulted for warrants, apparently, except possibly as a symbolic gesture), and of course the legislature (which is *supposed* to handle any new laws and regulations, *especially* those which clearly violate guidelines set by past laws), to the sidelines. It seems the "Patriot" act has in effect authorized the president and his henchmen to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and wave the flag of 'national security' and 'the war on terror' whenever anyone questions them, dooming anyone who dares make a peep to political suicide - whenever we turn on the TV, what's the first opinion the media seeks on *any* new political or legal issue?.. Bush's. They've set the guy on a pedestal where he apparently decides the fate of every government employee, from the peons to the Senators (like Lott, who seems to be breathing easier now that the White House has said it won't press for his resignation.. as if the White House had any authority to fire members of the Senate!.. not that he's a good senator, but the implied authority of the Presidency is starting to smack of monarchy..) Anyway, until we mortals are permitted to see the full report ourselves (long after the government makes its decision on it, of course, that's always the way it is.. you only know after it already applies to you..), we can only go on what these unnamed sources say of what they've seen of the report.. and it already doesn't look good.. sure, they say in the article that the proposal is only meant to gauge the 'overall' state of the network.. there's nothing to stop them from using these potential uber-Carnivore boxes to scan whatever they want, down to the packet level.. encryption may become a necessity, soon.. until it's outlawed, of course, or keys are legally required to be 'registered' with the government.. little by little, they slip the thin end of the crowbar in the door of freedom, always claiming they'll stop after just a little more.. but once they've wedged it in there far enough, there'll be nothing to stop them from breaking it in. -Danny Article text follows: December 20, 2002 White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ The Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks. The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security. Such a proposal, which would be subject to Congressional and regulatory approval, would be a technical challenge because the Internet has thousands of independent service providers, from garage operations to giant corporations like American Online, AT&T, Microsoftand Worldcom. The report does not detail specific operational requirements, locations for the centralized system or costs, people who were briefed on the document said. While the proposal is meant to gauge the overall state of the worldwide network, some officials of Internet companies who have been briefed on the proposal say they worry that such a system could be used to cross the indistinct border between broad monitoring and wiretap. Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who represents some of the nation's largest Internet providers, said, "Internet service providers are concerned about the privacy implications of this as well as liability," since providing access to live feeds of network activity could be interpreted as a wiretap or as the "pen register" and "trap and trace" systems used on phones without a judicial order. Mr. Baker said the issue would need to be resolved before the proposal could move forward. Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said yesterday that the proposal, which includes a national network operations center, was still in flux. She said the proposed methods did not necessarily require gathering data that would allow monitoring at an individual user level. But the need for a large-scale operations center is real, Ms. Olson said, because Internet service providers and security companies and other online companies only have a view of the part of the Internet that is under their control. "We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture," she said. "When something is happening, we don't know it's happening until it's too late." The government report was first released in draft form in September, and described the monitoring center, but it suggested it would likely be controlled by industry. The current draft sets the stage for the government to have a leadership role. The new proposal is labeled in the report as an "early-warning center" that the board says is required to offer early detection of Internet-based attacks as well as defense against viruses and worms. But Internet service providers argue that its data-monitoring functions could be used to track the activities of individuals using the network. An official with a major data services company who has been briefed on several aspects of the government's plans said it was hard to see how such capabilities could be provided to government without the potential for real-time monitoring, even of individuals. "Part of monitoring the Internet and doing real-time analysis is to be able to track incidents while they are occurring," the official said. The official compared the system to Carnivore, the Internet wiretap system used by the F.B.I., saying: "Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely. But in fact, it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet." One former federal Internet security official cautioned against drawing conclusions from the information that is available so far about the Securing Cyberspace report's conclusions. Michael Vatis, the founding director of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Center and now the director of the Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth, said it was common for proposals to be cast in the worst possible light before anything is actually known about the technology that will be used or the legal framework within which it will function. "You get a firestorm created before anybody knows what, concretely, is being proposed," Mr. Vatis said. A technology that is deployed without the proper legal controls "could be used to violate privacy," he said, and should be considered carefully. But at the other end of the spectrum of reaction, Mr. Vatis warned, "You end up without technology that could be very useful to combat terrorism, information warfare or some other harmful act." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Dec 20 2002 - 20:00:57 PST