Slashdot Mirror
Defense Department 'eDNA' Plan Withdrawn
An anonymous reader points out this report on News.com from Declan McCullagh of a far-reaching plan (now withdrawn) to curtail much online privacy through the use of biometric markers, excerpting "The idea involved creating secure areas of the Internet that could be accessed only if a user had such a marker, called eDNA, according to a report in Friday's New York Times." Perhaps they'll withdraw the plan to track everything you buy next. Update: 11/24 17:38 GMT by T : Here is the original New York Times report from John Markoff.
This would not be the free Internet at all.
This would be a new way of selective communication, it could turn out like email with no spam (yet).
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
I think I'm going to print out copies of a story about this, or the Total Information Awareness plan, or the USA Patriot act, for when people ask me, "Why in the world did you join the ACLU?". Previously I've answered that by telling them that I didn't want a state-imposed religion, but many christians don't see a problem with that.
I think we are so close to all of this right now, that we really won't know the impacts of technology on society and our governments ability to "control" it.
I truly think we are on a verge of some sort of revelution and one side will win. It is hard to tell which one it is. Either it is freedom of information (which inheritatly includes some anarchy) or a Orwellian controlled society that is something out of a sci-fi book.
What I don't think that we realize right now, is that we are on the threshold of that. Will our grandchildren look back at the DCMA and say "that was the start of it all". Who knows. In my gut, I feel that the DCMA, the dawn of the second millenium after Christ, is a defining moment in who we are as a species.
Fear and paranioia feed one side, and the desire to be free and uncontrolled feed the other. Who will win? Will open journalism keep us free, providing a double check on our governments, or will our freedoms be etched away, until we are left with nothing, comfortable in our little cage, none the wiser. Will information and freedom be nothing more than a commodity sold and developed by Microsoft? What does the future hold?
Opinions and comments welcome...
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
The idea involved creating secure areas of the Internet that could be accessed only if a user had such a marker, called eDNA, according to a report in Friday's New York Times
And how, exactly, is this *really* much better than creating secure areas of the Internet that can be accessed only if the user has a DRM-safe implementation of Palladium (which will probably only cover the base microsoft implementation)?
Okay, so your copy of Windows Leghorn can't be traced back to you specifically, in that it doesn't go back to your biometrics or whatever. But if you've used at least one e-commerce site with a dodgy privacy policy, it can probably be traced back to your credit card, which means it can be traced back to your mailing address.. which means, well, whatever it means if your mailing address is being sold to random companies along with sites you frequently visit.
Palladium does contain a unique id for each copy of the software implementing it, right? If not, i apologize for my tyrade, but still, am i the only one pissed off by the idea of cordoned-off sections of the internet you can only access if you follow their ultra-specific rules of running specific software, whether that's software that limits how you can reuse bits on your hard drive or software that ensures you're sending out biometric data with your internet connections..
The DoD has always wanted something like this. Back in 1997 they required all the computers to have PCMCIA slots. The idea was that someone could walk up to a PC whip out their ID disk, which was a PCMCIA card, put in the computer and access, their email, files, etc...
The problem with was that they were a little too forward thinking, you see they knew what they wanted, they just did not have anything to make it work! So they had invested tons of money in researching these sort of projects, and making silly requirements, like requiring all computers get PCMCIA slots in them, but never have anything to show for it. The quickest way for the government to flush money down the toilet, spend on the military.
Does anyone ever think back to our roots, and realize that maybe it's time for another American Revolution?
This is a classic political tactic: when you find that you've gone too far on something, throw out a strawman that's even more extreme and oppose it, thereby putting yourself in a manufactured moderate position.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks.
I don't see how online crime is any different than real life crime. Criminals leave traces and the authorities track them. Law enforcement has already proven on numerous occasions that they can track online criminals to other countries--which they haven't really been able to do with real life crime.
What's the problem--too many unsolved online crimes? Go look for DB Cooper or the Zodiac killer! Too many unreported crimes? Like they only see that online?!
This, along with the free wiretaps, sounds to me like they want to make their jobs easier. Other than the fact that they're flushing civil rights down the toilet, it sounds great but they'd better be careful what they wish for...when the amount of knowledge required to do your job is minimized to the point where monkeys can do it then you might just find your job being outsourced to the local zoo.
As much as I am pro freedom and privacy, and hate the power of the state and big corporations like a good leftish boy, there are good reasons to have some kind of identification on the 'net... No CC fraud, less spam (accountability for one's actions), and a definate way to prove who you are.
If it's implemented in a way that I can decide to use this identification, when, where, and how I want, without any possibility of being forced to do so, there is no privacy problem. If you don't want to give the information, you don't. If you need to do it, you can.
The internet could use a way to identify people for who they really are; as long as it's not mandatory or enforcible, it's only a positive thing, in my eyes.
You see, when you buy something with a credit card, or when you just really want to prove to someone who you are, you _want_ to give some information already. There is no privacy issue, since you want the information to be known; you can just back it up with proof.
It could be used as an optional extra check to avoid CC fraud, for instance.
Maybe it's time we blow of the dust of the (e.g.) pgp protocol, and try to find a way to make a official central directory in which we can be sure anybody is who he claims to be. If you don't want to use it and remain anonymous, you don't have to. It's all about choice.
I wonder why PGP isn't more popular.
Yeah, but they also don't list the "real" reason why the guvmint backed off. VISA was going to sue them. :P
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Though the DNA in eDNA is a nice term to use for the general public to understand the intentions of the concept of electronic identification, DNA is not a complete solution for identification. CSI fantasies aside, DNA can have its uses in identification, such as certain criminal investigation, or for Father's day. However, these are for situations where placement of DNA is accidental (crimes) or unavoidable (progeny). Where we run into problems is the intentional placement of DNA, such as intentional placement of DNA for identification purposes. Even as the speed and accuracy of decoding of DNA improves, we still have to deal with the methods of obtaining the DNA used for identification. You do not want people to fake your identity using epithelial cells found off a fork you used in a restaurant. For that matter, as we look into the future, we must also consider that any biometric methods may be eventually compromized by cloning. (DNA, fingerprints, retinal patterns, etc) Granted, that would be a long way off and is not even likely. We just need to keep in mind whenever we use identification methods, we need to use a combination of methods to minimize errors. For example, combining something you have (DNA) with something you know (password or code). We have so aspects of our identities linked today, I worry about our future being trusted to a single method of identification.
Indeed -- and if I can win the lottery I will have no financial problems. These are nice things to fantasize about, but they're not wise to plan on when the odds are so fundamentally against them happening.
Remember, the Social Security Number in the US was originally supposed to be only for the purposes of administering Social Security. Now it is "mandatory" for a wide range of things including just having a place to live (e.g., as part of an application for an apartment, a mortgage, etc.). When I was growing up (and I'm only in my 30s so this isn't ancient history!), I didn't need an SSN until I was ready to get a job. We applied for them as part of a 9th grade class; none of my fellow students had one. Scant decades later, my children were required to have an SSN application submitted almost immediately upon birth.
Maybe it's time we blow of the dust of the (e.g.) pgp protocol, and try to find a way to make a official central directory in which we can be sure anybody is who he claims to be.
You mean, like a keyserver?
I wonder why PGP isn't more popular.
Probably because "average" people don't understand it and the principles of trust surrounding it. Nor do they want to learn, because, as Thomas Edison put it, "Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think."
No Laughing Allowed!
Quote: "We were intrigued by the difficult computing science research involved in creating network capabilities that would provide the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world," spokeswoman Jan Walker said in a telephone interview.
:-
"the same level of accountability"
Makes it all sound perfectly reasonable - doesn't it?
Do they currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to ananalyse? - so is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to tag you like some sex offender - or an animal - would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
When will people realize that the Total Information Awareness plan / USA Patriot act are all bull* propaganda?
Like I stated many times
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when they checked individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. The group was lead by badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would not worry about having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
genetic fingerprinting is more accurate than normal fingerprints. Bush's ppl simple want the ability to easily track every american. It is amazing how many freedoms americans are giving up but have not gained one wit of security against the "enemy".