Internet Monitoring: Who Watches the Watchers? 75
wiredmikey writes "Here's an interesting take on the IT security industry and tools being sold and used by to monitor internet users. It's no secret that many states and nations are censoring and monitoring the Internet. Many of these governments are considered authoritarian regimes, often times with trade restrictions and other sanctions against them. Most of these censorship systems are based on proprietary, enterprise hardware and solutions. Unfortunately, those who decide where these tools end up are often torn between conflicting interests. How many services and devices are actually being used by people whom we prefer would not have access to them? How long until they are used against us, even if indirectly? At which point do we have to stop looking at Information Security as a market, and begin viewing it as a matter of defense and (inter)national security?"
Re:Where is the conflicting interest? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most parties spying on the Internet have just one interest in mind. We (some, you, whoever) may not like that interest, but it is rare that one of them have conflicting intersts as the summary says.
Blind eyes all around.
True there was some legislation about a decade ago, threatening USA trade with that evil unnamed country to the north (eh!) because they were trading with Cuba, but eventually some work-around was settled on, because Canada was the USA's biggest trading partner (still might be, despite what you may think of China.)
This is why people who once worked in government become "Trade Consultants" for $$,$$$,$$$ after leaving the service of the people, because they have the contacts and know the loopholes.
Re:You don't get to decide (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't follow.
How does a rant on the inability of the government to stop corporate attacks on itself refute a claim that the government is coordinating attacks on the public?
Hudson, you'll note, says the solution is for we, the people, to get back in control and apply the laws we have.
Being able to look in on the banks' internet communications would be one of our, the people's, tools.
As for this entire scare-fest, I will repeat what I always say in this situation:
THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE
Nor is it private. No more than using a megaphone to do your telecommunications. I know some people want to front the idea that there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy," but those people are blatantly ignorant of the origins and construction of the Internet. Or else they're well aware of them, and are trying to make the proles believe that the Internet dosn't pass every packet of your data along a sequence of loosely-related public and private linkages, any of which has every right to read and laugh at the data flowing through its equipment.