Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security Your Rights Online

Feds Recruiting ISPs To Combat Cyber Threats 59

Posted by samzenpus
from the a-little-help-here-please dept.
ygslash writes "The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have established a pilot program with leading private defense contractors and ISPs called DIB Cyber Pilot in an attempt to strengthen each others' knowledge base regarding growing security threats in cyberspace. The new program was triggered by recent high-profile hacks of the International Monetary Fund and many others. But don't worry — Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn promises that the new program will not involve "monitoring, intercepting, or storing any private sector communications" by the DOD and DHS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Recruiting ISPs To Combat Cyber Threats

Comments Filter:
  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @09:57AM (#36491038)

    so, while the citizenry are trying to find out more about what goes on inside the government, the government wants part of this 'fun' and continues to collect data on its citizens.

    wikileaks: bad when it tells about gov info; good when its THEM collecting data on US.

    I realize that its not really a 'leaks' concept, per se; but it sure is about collecting info and who gets the 'right' to see info and who does not.

    oh, and 'monetary fund'. yeah, we know that you guys only have our 'best interests' at heart (...)

    • by AmberBlackCat (829689) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @10:07AM (#36491100)
      Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.
      • Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.

        I'm reasonably certain that the Department of Defense don't give a hoot about mp3 files, unless they are a clever exploit to take control of a machine for remote exploitation. They do care about critical infrastructure being crippled. I'd don't think mp3s are involved in critical infrastructure, although they seem to play an important role in lurid fantasies.

        • by fluffy99 (870997)

          Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.

          I'm reasonably certain that the Department of Defense don't give a hoot about mp3 files, unless they are a clever exploit to take control of a machine for remote exploitation. They do care about critical infrastructure being crippled. I'd don't think mp3s are involved in critical infrastructure, although they seem to play an important role in lurid fantasies.

          DoD is getting much better at protecting themselves but our Govt is recognizing that the vast majority of private computers and networks are inadequately defended or monitored. You can't simply watch the overseas internet connections when a large percentage of attacks against DoD systems originate within our borders. Helping or even simply paying the ISPs to monitor and block attacks is a good idea on paper. This is also about gathering intel and capturing the traffic to and from the attacking computer s

      • by Sulphur (1548251)

        Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.

        More likely an flv or mp4 file IMO. When Khomeini took over Iran, it was by mailed cassettes.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Get the program started now, pretending that there is nothing bad about it. Use the program to break the law later.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by slick7 (1703596)
      If my memory serves me, the Nazi's recruited children to turn in their parents.
      It's time to peacefully take back this country of OURS.
      Like the "Weiner", one bad apple spoils the whole bushel. Unfortunately, there are more bad apples than good. RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL!
      • by Jawnn (445279)

        If my memory serves me, the Nazi's recruited children to turn in their parents. It's time to peacefully take back this country of OURS.

        Like the "Weiner", one bad apple spoils the whole bushel. Unfortunately, there are more bad apples than good. RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL!

        Please cite the metric you use to support your use of the word "more". [waits through extended awkward silence...] Ah..., I see. You were just blowing smoke about all those bad government people "like Wiener". Sounds like partisan bullshit to me. How's about we address the real issue, m'kay?

        There are lots of "bad apples" the House and Senate, but not because they Tweet pictures of their package to strange women or because they solicit blow jobs airport bathroom stalls. I really don't give a rat's ass abou

        • by slick7 (1703596)

          Please cite the metric you use to support your use of the word "more". [waits through extended awkward silence...] Ah..., I see. You were just blowing smoke about all those bad government people "like Wiener". Sounds like partisan bullshit to me. How's about we address the real issue, m'kay?

          My silence is due to a lack of readily available access to the internet, but since you ask for citations, here's one [politicalgraveyard.com], and here's another one [go.com].

          There is now an unrestricted flow of money from corporations (domestic and international) that is completely subverting our political process. The interests of the American people are a distant second.

          I was taught as a child that you clean from the top, down. When the voters realize that they are responsible for the politician's behavior, then, maybe, the voters will take the initiative to recall these bastards. However, not all politicians are bastards, but the few that are not, are outweighed by the many that are.
          The outrageous behavior, in my humble opinion, is t

    • If you think this story is anything like "Wikileaks", either forward or backwards, I don't think you understood it at all.

      Is leaving critical infrastructure open to crippling attacks by cyberpunks just for "lulz" a good idea? I wouldn't think so.

      Since practically all of the internet infrastructure is operated and maintained by various businesses, doesn't it make sense to involve them in security discussions and planning?

      • by biodata (1981610)
        The people who left critical infrastructure open to crippling attacks by cyberpunks are the companies which internet-enabled that infrastructure. The internet is designed to share information, not hide it. It is not a secure environment and isn't designed to be. Just because the companies want to pretend it is does not make it so. Email is a postcard and nothing on the internet is secure. This was the case in 1995 and still is now.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Except that this operation is actually a social engineering operation, to spread certain views about censorship into the minds of the ISPs. Because when they do it "voluntarily", you don't need to create any unpopular laws.
      In a few months, you will all see censorship being enabled, and you will not fight it, but either just accept it as "something I can't change", or even argue for it. At least that's the plan.
      And looking at how well they managed to get you all to agree to mass-murdering over 100,000 people

      • "The internet was designed to share information"

        Crap, the internet was never designed to "share" information.

        It was designed to transport information, with a controlled level of quality, and reliability.

        Any security did, and remains on the shoulders of the end-points of communication.

        In other words, it is up to you, boys and girls.

  • Of course not, they'll be monitored, intercepted and stored by ISPs, who will then share them instead.
  • Okay, as long as we got a voucher.
  • im sure ISP's like BT already tried this within themselves for advertising purposes, and sold the info to the highest bidder (phorm)... and to a lesser extent with search data and analytical data, Google. who also use the information for their own advertising means and sell the info to the highest bidder (adwords)...

    just happens that in this case, DOD and DHS are the only bidders and are making it "worth their while"

  • Fantastic... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @10:27AM (#36491178) Journal
    "The new program will not involve "monitoring, intercepting, or storing any private sector communications" by the DOD and DHS."

    Of course not. Why do you think that the private defense contractors and ISPs are being brought in? They handle that and then pass on the bill and the 'intelligence product' on, and buying that isn't technically any of those things...
    • Re:Fantastic... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Froeschle (943753) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @10:51AM (#36491272)
      This is how America works. Officially on paper we have more freedoms than anyone in the world but in practice it is another story. For example during an internal training session in my company I was recently informed that "our constitutional rights cease to exist in the workplace". The government may be restricted from directly trampling on our rights (which is debatable), but there is nothing in the Constitution that keeps private companies from doing so. Everything seems to have become a privilege rather than a right and privileges are a lot easier to take away both directly and indirectly. For example if you criticize the government your privilege to board an aircraft can be taken away and with that your privilege to have a job and be a normal member of society. The US Constitution is in great need of an overhaul.
      • Re:Fantastic... (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot@NOSpAM.uberm00.net> on Sunday June 19, 2011 @11:02AM (#36491320) Homepage Journal

        For example during an internal training session in my company I was recently informed that "our constitutional rights cease to exist in the workplace"

        Your company is incorrect. That said, most of the Constitution's restrictions are on the government specifically, and not on interactions between private entities, like you and your employer. So while your employer is most definitely incorrect, they probably meant to say something like, "you do not have an unlimited right to free speech in the workplace" or "you should not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever in the workplace," which is perfectly valid.

        Of course, there is a real problem when the government uses outsourced third party companies to put a veil over otherwise unconstitutional actions, like you mentioned.

        • Re:Fantastic... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by arth1 (260657) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @01:50PM (#36492390) Homepage Journal

          That said, most of the Constitution's restrictions are on the government specifically, and not on interactions between private entities, like you and your employer. So while your employer is most definitely incorrect, they probably meant to say something like, "you do not have an unlimited right to free speech in the workplace" or "you should not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever in the workplace," which is perfectly valid.

          Which is perfectly valid if, and only if, you have drank the cool-aid. Other countries and cultures treat the expectation of privacy as an inalienable right which you can not sign away in order to choose job over starving. If a company monitors employees, it needs to notify them before each and every incidence, not a blanco "may" in a contract.

          Is this phone call recorded? If you don't know, it's (what in more free countries would be considered illegal) wiretapping, plain and simple. Who owns the equipment is irrelevant - the company owns the toilets too, but that doesn't give them a right to install cameras under the lid.

          • by TheSpoom (715771)

            Which is perfectly valid if, and only if, you have drank the cool-aid. Other countries and cultures treat the expectation of privacy as an inalienable right which you can not sign away in order to choose job over starving. If a company monitors employees, it needs to notify them before each and every incidence, not a blanco "may" in a contract.

            So, in other words, they display a popup upon logging on to their computers saying that all activity is monitored and you should have no expectation of privacy. I kn

        • by Anonymous Coward

          "you should not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever in the workplace,"

          This is why I can't poop at work

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I think the US constitution is in need of a keelhaul.

        BTW, even though New York has the big statue of Libertas, Canada has always been the real land of the Free. Large numbers of Americans have fled to Canada over the centuries and still do, so if you are really oppressed, the underground railroad still runs...

      • by ccguy (1116865)

        Officially on paper we have more freedoms than anyone in the world

        Well, your media (movies, news, TV shows) keeps saying that and most of you seem to believe it, but it's not the perception most of us in Western Europe have about this matter...

  • When the FBI fights phishing that uses trademark infringement to steal millions from civilians the way that it fights copyright infringement that "steals" little if anything, I'll be impressed with the Federal response to the network security crisis.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @10:47AM (#36491244) Homepage

    Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn promises that the new program will not involve "monitoring, intercepting, or storing any private sector communications" by the DOD and DHS."

    Because the NSA, DHS and FBI are already doing so much of that your packets would take an extra 20 minutes getting where they're going bouncing around between federal agencies spying on your online activity.

  • by U8MyData (1281010) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @10:48AM (#36491256)
    This is precisely wht we need accountability and transparency within the system, especially on the internet. The net is what it is because it is about as free as anything else. Yes, there are dangers, but so are those on the road, walking down the street or just plain living life. I would also agree; however, leaving security up to the individual is probably not a good thing. I am a systems pro and I know this first hand. But leaving security up to a group that might be influenced by the RIAA, for example, is probably the death of net as we know it.
  • When I was as a part time system admin, I thought this would be wonderful. I would gladly let the NSA, etc secure my professor's public facing webserver in exchange for the government to use my server when they needed.
  • It appears that USA is applying lessons from 2001, which was that different intelligence networks (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) had information on terrorism but were not sharing it or "connecting the dots". The department of "Homeland Security" didn't appear to me to be the solution to that (Obama and Bush rotating leadership between CIA, NSA, Pentagon probably works better). But the analogy between Hackers and Al-Qaeda is perhaps apt, and in face of a disorganized organic opposition, sharing information doesn't
    • From the government's perspective 9/11 was like Christmas. No need to speculate about future "misuse" of this project; the intent of the project to begin with is to misappropriate funds and authority.
  • I don't know if recruiting would be as appropriate of a word as subjugating.
  • The internet has really gone downhill since government regulation was deemed appropriate by the governments themselves. Most tech-savvy individuals are unsurprised, and completely expected said outcome. Yes, it's time to create a new internet without commercial interest. They have (through government intervention) ruined the whole damned thing. Ideas? Comments?
  • in the last few years i've seen a rising trend of aggression toward the general public in the USA. at what point do we declare this the War on Citizens?

    dont get me wrong, i know there is need for security but it's become a runaway train.

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...