Feds Recruiting ISPs To Combat Cyber Threats 59
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."
reverse wikileaks, sort of (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (...)
Re:reverse wikileaks, sort of (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The plan: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Happy Horse shit Re:reverse wikileaks, sort of (Score:1)
"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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why store it all twice?
The only reason they're able to do this (Score:2)
is because there are only, what, 4 ISPs left in the US?
Not like in the day when there were hundreds in every city.
The Feds would have had a hard time rounding up ISPs to do their bidding back then.
Navin R Johnson's response to DSD Lynn (Score:2)
Doesnt this already happen? (Score:1)
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"
Re:Yes another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Interesting)
America has really gone downhill. The country that started the whole freedom thing never moved on.
In particular, the US is still stuck with that Constitution that forbids government to perform "unwarranted search and seizure", but permits such actions by private corporations, who can then sell the information to government agencies. Until the US learns to extend the constitutional freedoms to all organizations, this will continue to provide a workaround for the Constitution's limits on the government.
This is much of the motive behind the growing American push to hand over most government activities to private corporations. The people pushing for this know quite well what they're doing, and fully intend the corporate world to perform the monitor and control functions that are forbidden to the government.
I wonder if there's a name for this sort of political policy? ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if there's a name for this sort of political policy? ;-)
"Fascism" perhaps?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
While I have my doubts about this program but this drum beat of 'America has really gone downhill' is pretty much nonsense. Every decade we have more not less personal freedoms, try being gay, black, Irish, communist, female, etc etc etc in various parts of the past 100+ years. Watch South Park and then envision watching it 15 years ago or even when it first came out.
The biggest change I can see in the past 20 years is increased awareness by the public, largely helped by the internet, of limits to freedo
Re:Yes another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Informative)
Every decade we have more not less personal freedoms,
Funny, a century ago you were allowed to grow plants for personal use without having a paramilitary force invade your home, seize your property, and imprison you. These days, the list of plants and chemicals you are not allowed to be in possession of grows year after year, and we no longer bother with democratic processes when determining what is on that list: the Attorney General has the power to declare a drug to be illegal without having to first seek congressional approval. You can be arrested for possession of a drug whose legality was never voted on by your representatives.
Yes, some strides have been made -- it is certainly easier for men to be gay now than it was 50 years ago, and likewise with black people and communists. In that same period of time, despite those improvements, the United States' prison population has grown by orders of magnitude, to the point where we have a larger prison population than any country in the entire world, and have the third largest of any country that ever existed (we still haven't imprisoned more people than Nazi Germany or the USSR). It is not that surprising, though, considering that many American prisons are operated for-profit, and that police forces are actually allowed to use seized assets in drug cases to pay their own salaries (thus giving rise to our self-funded police units, who have been known to get appraisals on property before making an arrest).
Take a look around. This is not 1 step back and 1.1 steps forward, it is 2 steps back and an occasional step forward. You know something is wrong when law enforcement agencies are carrying around military rifles to arrest people for non-violent crimes.
Re:Yes another nail in the coffin (Score:4, Insightful)
No disagreement on the points you raised, I guess it's a function of how you count, number of people imprisoned or number of freedoms eroded. The former is almost entirely due to drug laws.
If we just legalized most drugs our prison population would drop precipitously. Pot legalization has been espoused for decades but we're only now finally seeing a slow relaxation of those rules (various medicinal use laws) and actual discussion at the federal level rather than in smoke filled living rooms of decriminalizing in general. I'd argue we're more likely to legalize or relax criminal penalties for drug use over the next 10 years than we were 10 years ago.
I agree with the points made in the sibling post about illegal search and seizure by corporations needing to be curtailed but I'd still argue it's not as as bad as it has been in other periods of US history, particularly where rail, mines etc were concerned.
I'm in no way condoning any of the government level stupidity or suggesting since it used to be worse we should be happy with now, just arguing against the hyperbole that we're heading to hell in a hand basket, it's some sort of lost cause or we're actually losing ground. Don't buy it, particularly the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
USSR
What the fuck are you talking about? US is far ahead of USSR in number of imprisoned people -- even at worst times USSR had less prisoners.
True, at some point one could get a really long sentence for publishing and performing a poem that consists of nothing but a content-free angry rant about Stalin being a monster. While unfair (though some consider it fitting for lack of subtlety and bad taste), the number of people subjected to it is hopelessly outmatched by pot smokers, desperate poor, and other categor
Re: (Score:2)
Fantastic... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Fantastic... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
This is why I can't poop at work
Re: (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Phighting Phishing (Score:1)
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.
Duplication of effort (Score:3)
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.
Transparency (Score:3)
Let my server join the National Guard (Score:2)
Fighting the last war... better than not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A matter of semantics (Score:1)
Internet usage after hostile government take over (Score:2)
out of control (Score:1)
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.