U.S. Proposes Centralized Internet Surveillance 746
Mr.Intel writes "The Times is reporting that President Bush 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 recommendation is part of a report entitled 'The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'. It is due to be published early next year."
Is this not espionage? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not a US citizen. If they are monitoring everything on the net, how would they know that I am British and not American. If they do build up a profile of foreign populations, does this classify as espionage?
In my case, Blair sucks up to bush anyway, but what if I was chinese or something?
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to be trolling. Oh well, in answer to that...
1) Centralised data means a single point of attack.
2) Trust your government, do you? Even after Iran Contra?
3) I don't notice anyone saying that they've gotten any useful intelligence from emails _before_ a crime has been committed.
OD
Guess who's next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, independant music won't be distinguished in order to make thier stats look better "43 trillion music files were traded last year, and our revenue only increased by 2 billion. If we make each of those users pay every time they trade a file, we could make gazillion's (to quote jk) more. Of course we'd give 1 million to the governemnt for letting us use their network for our own commercial gain.
Folks, the internet is dying because it became the true meaning of free speech, communication and information. Corporations are slowly killing the net, which requires Goverments to get their hands in on regulating things.
I don't use the net as much as I did because of all the popups, spam and corporate cluelessness.
If anyone knows of a protected Sub-net (encrypted, anonymous use) please let me know to restore my faith.
Thank you.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
The whole Internet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the Volkssicherheitsministerium will have a hard time to peek into, e.g. European research networks. It's unlikely that they would export flow data (or something else) to the U.S.
Damned if you do... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush administration makes alot of noise that they're doing something serious to deal with Internet Security, and *gasp* all they're up to is just cajoling private industry to get their act together. The slackers!
A half year goes by, and again, more noise. This time they're doing something real -- central monitoring, accountability, mandatory support for legal interception, and *gasp* all they're up to is stealing control of private property to further their own nefarious goals. The nazis!
I'm not sure what people want. I'm not sure what I want. The only thing I am sure of is we'll not be happy with whatever we get.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:great news!! (Score:3, Interesting)
At the very least you will have to go look for new websites to browse, but for some people who use American websites for research purposes or some other practical means may be concerned by this.
I wonder if soon we will have to register and "clear Customs" before "crossing the border" into American cyberspace. We Canadians might one day find that accessing the virtual US gets harder than physically crossing the border!
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Interesting)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
Kierthos
National? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this yet another example of American Imperialism?
In my country (somewhere in Europe, thanks to my forefathers) we have quite extensive privacy legislature; could I sue the US if they would gather data on me and if they refuse to remove it on my request?
Sombody send Bush an AOL CD-ROM.
The Transparent Society (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the publisher's blurb [perseuspublishing.com]:
The Transparent Society
Will Technology Force Us To Choose Between Privacy And Freedom?
In New York and Baltimore, police cameras scan public areas twenty-four hours a day. Huge commercial databases track you finances and sell that information to anyone willing to pay. Host sites on the World Wide Web record every page you view, and "smart" toll roads know where you drive. Every day, new technology nibbles at our privacy.Does that make you nervous?
David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability.The Transparent Society is a call for "reciprocal transparency." If police cameras watch us, shouldn't we be able to watch police stations? If credit bureaus sell our data, shouldn't we know who buys it?
Rather than cling to an illusion of anonymity-a historical anomaly, given our origins in close-knit villages-we should focus on guarding the most important forms of privacy and preserving mutual accountability. The biggest threat to our freedom, Brin warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people, now by too many.A society of glass houses may seem too fragile. Fearing technology-aided crime, governments seek to restrict online anonymity; fearing technology-aided tyranny, citizens call for encrypting all data.
Brins shows how, contrary to both approaches, windows offer us much better protection than walls; after all, the strongest deterrent against snooping has always been the fear of being spotted. Furthermore, Brin argues, Western culture now encourages eccentricity-we're programmed to rebel! That gives our society a natural protection against error and wrong-doing, like a body's immune system. But "social T-cells" need openness to spot trouble and get the word out.
The Transparent Society is full of such provocative and far-reaching analysis.The inescapable rush of technology is forcing us to make new choices about how we want to live. This daring book reminds us that an open society is more robust and flexible than one where secrecy reigns. In an era of gnat-sized cameras, universal databases, and clothes-penetrating radar, it will be more vital than ever for us to be able to watch the watchers. With reciprocal transparency we can detect dangers early and expose wrong-doers. We can gauge the credibility of pundits and politicians. We can share technological advances and news. But all of these benefits depend on the free, two-way flow of information.
In The Transparent Society, award-winning author David Brin details the startling argument that privacy, far from being a right, hampers the real foundation of a civil society: accountability. Using examples as disparate as security cameras in Scotland and Gay Pride events in Tucson, Brin shows that openness is far more liberating than secrecy and advocates for a society in which everyone (not just the government and not just the rich) could look over everyone else's shoulders.
The biggest threat to our society, he warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people not by too many.
David Brin has a Ph.D. in physics, but is best known for his science fiction. His books include the New York Times bestseller The Uplift War, Hugo Award-winner Startide Rising, and The Postman. He lives in Encinitas, California.
Re:Redundant? (Score:1, Interesting)
You think of something like google, now scale that up a bit and do that same scan once a second. Cos that's basically what they are proposoing. Remember if you cannot filter the information in real time you end up with a queue, once the queue gets too big you either have a growing backlog queue or you dump some of it.
If yahoo cannot filter out french people selling/buying german war artifacts what chance do you think the US government has of doing similar.
The only way would be through de-centralised servers and I can just see russia and china and most of europe saying, yes please install a data montioring facility with high speed filters in our setup. However the UK will jump in the US pocket no doubt and make it law that as an ISP you must have a US monitoring server in your setup.
Re:Difference with a phone ? (Score:2, Interesting)
The difference with a phone or a letter is the billboard or library functionality the internet provides. You can publish any information public to the entire world... Phonecalls end and a letters arrive, but some information on the internet will stay...
Anyway, I think scanning all accessible information - especcialy if we are talking about emails and chat sessions - would be a major violation of privacy laws.
Second, what does this mean for sites or forms of communication which are restricted to certain users/members? I mean if one is a member, by payment, by job or whatever other means of a site or mailinglist providing religious, pr0n0graphic, research or even terrorsit information what right do they have to scan these 'private areas'. I mean, hey, the CIA, FBI nor ATF have anything to do with the amount of beer I keep in my java & web enabled refrigidator...
And at last I cannot image how anyone would accomplish such a task. I mean to monitor the all work being published would - I guess - take one 'spy' on each six or so people publishing. Perhaps the US government just wants their own people to turn each other in... Something similar to the system used in eastern Germany while it still was a communist country...
Perhaps publishing under DMCA would... No, fuck that.
The Solution to Surveillance (Score:3, Interesting)
The best way to prevent surveillance from interfering with your life is to make it useless information. One way to do this is by creating more noise data, which makes the signal data harder to retrieve.
There is one really easy way to do this with the Internet particularly, and that is to create an application, which can be run voluntarily or propogated the same way Nimda and Melissa were. That running application would then spread random false alarms at such a high rate that nobody can keep up with them, thereby throwing the profile of a terrorist way off. This junk data can be trigger phrases from a dictionary, or it can just be faked PGP encrypted data from
If you wanted to take that a step further and screw with Echelon, you could create a virus that gained control of various corporations' PBX servers, then randomly dial numbers in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Everytime a connection is made, you could have an audio file play various trigger phrases, thereby adding noise to that medium.
In the real world, the solution is to make yourself appear as a terrorist even if you're not. Check out "How to Build a Nuclear Weapon" and the Koran from your local library. Use your credit card to buy dual-use products that you need. If everyone is suspicious, then the data is useless.
Now, the problem is, that I, as Joe American, can think of this, which means that the real terrorists can certainly think of even more effective ways to cripple surveillance tools. The sad part is that the government agencies still think that they are able to find a signal in complete white noise. The only people that are going to be effectively watched are the ones that don't need to be.
The Solution to Surveillance (Score:4, Interesting)
The best way to prevent surveillance from interfering with your life is to make it useless information. One way to do this is by creating more noise data, which makes the signal data harder to retrieve.
There is one really easy way to do this with the Internet particularly, and that is to create an application, which can be run voluntarily or
propogated the same way Nimda and Melissa were. That running application would then spread random false alarms at such a high rate that nobody can
keep up with them, thereby throwing the profile of a terrorist way off. This junk data can be trigger phrases from a dictionary, or it can just be faked PGP encrypted data from
If you wanted to take that a step further and screw with Echelon, you could create a virus that gained control of various corporations' PBX
servers, then randomly dial numbers in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Everytime a connection is made, you could have an audio file play various
trigger phrases, thereby adding noise to that medium.
In the real world, the solution is to make yourself appear as a terrorist even if you're not. Check out "How to Build a Nuclear Weapon" and the
Koran from your local library. Use your credit card to buy dual-use products that you need. If everyone is suspicious, then the data
is useless.
Now, the problem is, that I, as Joe American, can think of this, which means that the real terrorists can certainly think of even more effective ways to cripple surveillance tools. The sad part is that the government agencies still think that they are able to find a signal in complete white noise. The only people that are going to be effectively watched are the ones that don't need to be.
This will NEVER stop those that don't want stopped (Score:3, Interesting)
Find an aspiring country that doesn't give a shit about President Bush beating his chest wanting data and set up a VPN tunnel through their network.
Problem solved.
It seems to me it is our responsibility as those in the know to inform those not in the know that stupid ideas like this are just that and nothing more.
We did it with Circuit City and DivX. We can do it again.
Brin's vision is different from the government's (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem is one-sided transparency: if the government has all the knowledge, the government is all powerful: it can use its knowledge for blackmail, for constructing "secret evidence" to be used in trials, etc., and ordinary citizens have no way of fighting that.
Take speed traps as an example. As long as the police does not release detailed information on who gets caught where and when, you can argue until you are blue in the face in front of a judge--if a policeman stands up and says you speeded, you will get convicted. If, on the other hand, all related data is available, you might well be able to prove that the policeman didn't calibrate the radar gun, that they are engaging in selective enforcement, that the speed limit at that location is deliberately too low, that the location is being used for "revenue enhancement", etc.
The Bush administration is one of the most secretive governments we have had in a long time. People like Poindexter don't want transparency, they want a large differential in the amount of information available to the government and corporations vs. the amount of information available to individuals. And they want that as a means of control.
Re:Damned if you do... (Score:4, Interesting)
They can be both at the same time.
See, you're quite right that this won't happen in any useful way. But it can still do a lot of damage. It will do nothing to prevent terrorist attack -- but it will give assorted federal agencies and their corporate masters the power to make life hell for any individual Internet user they choose, for any reason, on the flimsiest of pretexes. That's pretty much what totalitarian governments do.
You've heard the "At least he made the trains run on time" line about Mussolini? Interesting historical tidbit: a friend of mine whose grandfather lived in Italy at the time likes to tell the story his grandfather passed on to him, about that line
The Fascist government didn't make the trains run on time. Italian trains under Mussolini were as unreliable as they had always been. BUT -- what they did do, was terrorize everyone into saying the trains ran on time.
That's the world we're headed for. "At least W. made us secure from terrorist attack" -- and he won't, but we'll have to pretend he did.
So did...... John Ashcroft! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ping Home... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I read the article, I see this as the ISPs being required to ping around their network, and then send those ping results back to governement servers in real time. This would be a burdensome hassle for the ISPs, but it wouldn't be any data that would compromise user privacy.
And this data could be very effective... if Google can't be pinged, it's the first alert of a DOS attack on a vital piece of 'net infrastructure. If all of Los Angeles goes dark, this would be first notificaition that something's gone very wrong...
Re:Bummer. (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny, but also very insightful. Internet snooping completely destroys freedom of speech and democracy. Here's why:
Imagine I don't like something that the government is doing. Our democratic and free society is supposed to allow me the right to criticise it. That's how democracy works, if the people have no say, then it's not democratic.
Now, say that everything you say or do on the net is logged and tracked. Would you be so forward in voicing your opinion if you know it will single you out and appear on your permanent record? Of course not!
What if that information was to prevent you getting a job or a visa at some point in the future? For example, I could criticise this drive for a war in Iraq. However, I now risk those thoughts becoming a part of my electronic persona. They could prevent me getting a Visa for the US, working for a US company, or working in any area of national security for my own country. They would single me out for special attention at airports as well as special attention being paid to my internet usage.
All because I believe that starting this war is wrong? I'm sorry, but that's not the kind of world I want to live in. Sounds strangely like Orwell's vision to me...
It wasn't the Civil War... (Score:4, Interesting)
But the civil rights movement did (mostly) clobber "states rights" to defy federal authority. This was the last defense of so-called nullification. Remember President Eisenhower sending in paratroopers to integrate Little Rock High School? Ike was not too jazzed about integration, but he was certain what he thought of defiance of the national government and courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in multiple forms down to a local joint called Ollie's Barbeque, which lost its appeal to the Supreme Court. What was new was the Supreme Court's recognition of broad federal powers under the 14th A. and the Commerce Clause, which it never would have done before th New Deal.
The question here is whether states can impede legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement. The answer is (now) no. They have significance via the 10th A., and certain federal efforts to regulate have been deemed too intrusive, but the states are in no position to impose a stricter version of the 4th A. than the federal constitution already has.
The obvious problem with authority is that it be easily used or abused. That's why we have democratic control of our gov't. The question to ask is, who arounbd you does support this sort of national surveillance of "other people" on the off chance it might avert another 9/11? I think there are quite a few. I'm sympathetic, too, except I don't think many realize how impractical, expensive, and damaging this could be, like certain other national defense measures we're looking at....
Oh no, they're monitoring email and web traffic! (Score:4, Interesting)
do [openssh.com]?
Seriously though, the advent of projects like Freenet makes this legislation a complete farce. ANY subversive and violent organization who wants to communicate securely and confidentially over the Internet can do so, in a myriad number of ways, with a little bit of research, and have a fairly high chance of escaping detection by a Carnivore-type system.
There's only two possible explanations for this bill: 1) Ignorance on the part of those drafting the legislation, and 2) Terrorism being used as a pretext to clamp down on other criminal activity that would otherwise be difficult to investigate and prosecute, due to Fourth Amendment restrictions.
I don't know which explanation worries and frightens me more.
Before you all go off the deep end (Score:3, Interesting)
Even so it is important to think of the level in the administration that this type of proposal comes from. This looks to me like something that the spooks have had on their shopping list for years and are simply putting it on the agenda now they smell that the administration will let them.
The news on Haliburton this morning makes this the first administration ever in which the President and Vice President were invesigated by the SEC for stock frauds. As if having the first President with a criminal conviction was not enough! It also means that there will be even more strenuous efforts to change the subject to Iraq, even if that means starting a war.
One thing to get really worried about is the lengths that the spooks may go to get their way. Peter Wright's autobigography 'Spycatcher' describes some of the dirty tricks that MI5 used against Harold Wilson's government. Given the character of the people in charge you have to wonder what additional information the spooks might have that they could use as leverage to get their way. After all this is what J. Edgar Hoover did and his name is still on the FBI HQ.
I've read 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
The central thesis of 1984 was that people will abuse the power they have. Once technology was developed to monitor your thoughts, thoughts would be monitored and any thought that might detract loyalty from the government would be outlawed. The term was thoughtcrime and it was related to sexcrime. Any means to achieve this state, including bombing your own people would be used and perpetual warfare was required to motivate the people and waste their efforts. We are very much on the way here in the US.
First, examine thoughtcrime. We already have laws against thoughts such as "hate crime" laws which gauge the intent of the criminal rather than actions and harm done. The federal government has long forbiden any group recieving federal funds from donating to "hate" groups. That's disturbing on it's own but much more so in a society where more than 1 in 4 $ of GDP are federal spending. Symbols are being outlawed, words and phrases are not far behind. These new monitoring plans are extensions of police "profiling" efforts and Carnivore. Now, thanks to Patriot and USA Act, domestic spying including inflitration of religious organizations, is legal. Illegal activities are being encouraged, with the understanding that it will lead to evidence that CAN be legaly used, and that is the spirit of these new laws. Today, your thoughts will get you monitored and blacklisted which involves a real loss of privalidge. Soon, those thoughts might get you raided and jailed. As the machinery of thought monitoring improves, more thoughts will become illegal. This new survailence system WILL be targeted, and hence very useful. Everybit as useful as the random checks of indviduals by two way televisions of 1984. The could be watching, so you have to behave, forever.
Now examine what the government is willing to do to achieve the above violation or your rights and expansion of it's power. I have yet to see reasonable proof of exactly who was responsible for 9/11, and so have not put the CIA or Israeli secret police off my list. Ossama was trained and supplied by the CIA when the struggle was against the Soviets. Any institution that has gained since then is suspect. There is no end to the "war against terror" A war against individual criminals is not a war, it's a police action, but that will have to do for now. Soon enough, we can get ourselves into a shooting war. Orwell predicted that all the centers of culture would be wiped out in order to make the new perpetual oligarchical states. I hope the folks willing to trade a little freedom for a little security are not also willing to trade a little prosperity for a little order.
And that is enough duckspeak for me today. File it, it will come in handy when The Book of rebelious thoughts is compiled to trap the disobedient. Oldthinkders unbellyfeel Ingsoc!
I have a simple answer for this (Score:3, Interesting)
Realistically, it will have to be 100% blanket surveillance of those we chose to be effective - every letter, fax, night vision the bedroom - the whole deal. Congressmen, and the President, for instance, will make many claims that this is outrageous, etc. but only one class of such complaints really moves me, which is that "matters of national security," etc. prevent the publishing of such surveillance. To this I propose spot reviews by n (5-15?) randomly selected members of opposition political partie(s) for asserting that a) no crime occurred, and b) making an embargo on the data for n years (5? 25?).
The accountability is long overdue, and they don't call it the public life for nothing. It sounds ridiculous at first, but it would work. It would drive a lot of the people you don't want out of politics virtually overnight. Public service in elected office (and I don't think just elected officials should be eligible for such a program) is a solemn duty with the heaviest responsibilities to the people. Both common logic and "reasonable suspicion" should compell us to take this step.
But I see no reason why this requires "reciprocity" for private citizens.
Re:Who in the hell needs a constitution anymore!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, come on; the two-party system makes a mockery of the word "democracy". Your vote is worthless, the "lesser of two evils" is not a choice.
Besides, every election is won by the party that spent the most of their campain. This is extremely consistent over the years.
Internet == Libraries (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, there is little difference between libraries and the internet at large -- both are essentially public information access, merely via a different medium. What happens to one, be that surveillance, censorship, or other restrictions, sooner or later will happen to the other.
This is not America. (Score:5, Interesting)
YES IT CAN BE DONE!
The internet is a very dangerous tool of the people. The working classes.... Untill not the digital divide and kept most of the concerns of our and other governments out of or even off the internet. You see ideas are more powerful then gun, missles, plains and tanks. Collectivly we have power. Divided we have a mess of opposing ideas. I believe it was richard nixon that first coined the phrase "The silent majority". He used this as a justification for trying to keep his office of president. The idea was that... Sure everyone was shouting for his removal but there was a "Slient Majority" that wanted him to stay in office. History has shown that this "Majority" was only 35% of the population.
The Metaphor of War.
When I was 17 I joined the Army. I did this because it has been a family tradition that I thought was valuable experiance. I was a patriot joining to help defend our way of life and to attest my belief in the constitution of the united states. This country has been defended by 4 generations of Richardsons. When you join the Army you are asked to give a oath to uphold the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I'm not making this up. So why does the powers that be want to remove personal freedoms?
Does anyone remember when the War on Drugs was started against the American people? Well It never affected me. All the people in public housing that have to concent to searches going in and out of there homes. After all there was a "Majority" of people that believed in it right? The war on drugs is just a Metaphor! There is no real war going on except against the american people. All the shooting in south america and other drug producing countries are by rebels that actually might have a good reason to take up arms against their governments. I don't live there... I only know whats going on from what I read on the internet. Well years later we are still fighting the war on drugs. Low and behold searching people in public housing was not enough. We need roving check points on our borders. We need survalance of everyone. We go after people that in most cases are not even stronge enough to commit a violent crime. All in the name of keeping america safe from the drug crazed elements in our world. It's even created whole new types of corperations. Prison corperations that live off of a steady stream of bodies that need to be warehoused.
Does anyone remember the first Metaphor war in this country. Correct me if I'm wronge but I believe it was "The War on Poverty" started by the carter adminstation. I have a personal belief that this war was not sexy enough for the republicans. Because we seemed to drop that pretty fast when the poor started to be viewed as Crazed Crack addicts. Now if we as a nation were going to take up a impossible war this is the one we should be fighting. I don't think anyone can disagree with this. But we don't... We funnel in millions to law enforcement to fight drug use in the form of locking up the users. Ask a cop if he feels good sending a 18 year old to jail for having drugs. I've known A+ students that served 10 years for drug charges. What service did we get from that. A really scary person that could have been something grand. I don't want dealers on the street and I DON'T want drugs legal.
Which brings me to the War on Terrorism. Hey I'm all for protecting the country/world against bad guys. But let me ask this question.... If we stoped pouring resources into a failing drug war based on locking up the users. And instead turned to actually tighting up our borders couldn't we maybe get more truck, ships and planes searched for both drugs and weapons?
Where is all this leading? Your focusing on a battle not the war. Your focusing on the symptoms not the root cause. You watch your government take more and more away from you and you sit in your homes and pretend that you are so aware that it makes you a better person. Well did you vote? you did? did you get someone that did not vote to vote? Did you write your congressman to show disaproval of the fact that they signed the Patriot act after only reading a 3 or 4 page summary? I know that NO ONE was there to say "Hey you can't search these people just because they live in public housing". And I bet no one will be there to stop this landslide that is taking over the nation. We need to be vocal with this failing form of government. It's not a democratecy if only 40% of the population votes.
As a nation we need to find the root cause of this encrochment of our person rights and freedoms. I believe the root cause to be the lack of respect for the constitution by our government leaders. They will sit and tell you that for your safety we do these things.... They are lying! They do these things because the benefit the people that got them into office. The corperations and special interest groups. So when you whine about your posts to the everquest board shouldnt' be monitored your kidding you self. They can do what they want because even with the internet we are not ready to band together under the banner of freedom outlined in the constitution of the united states of america. So when they start replacing internet routers with computers that log ever packet. All to be gathered and processed by a government contractor that will be using your tax money to read your e-mail to mom. When the police get information on what pron movie you purchase with your credit card. When the army comes knocking on your door to recruit your 17 year old son because their records show that he can follow orders in his online games. Don't Panic. Because its all in the name of your protection.
"Silence means security, Silence means approval". --REM
P.S. spelling and grammer errors left in due to the fact that I really don't have the time to type this in the first place.
Re:It wasn't the Civil War... (Score:5, Interesting)
The local resolutions being passed by the cities do not instruct local law enforcement to impede federal law enforcement. They merely instruct local law enforcement not to ASSIST
On the subject of "legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement" please explain to me WHERE in the constitution the federal government is given ANY police power. Is it in Article I? (The legislative branch)
Actually, you are wrong on that
Oh, yes