Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Proposes Centralized Internet Surveillance
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."
Even we didn't spy on our citizens this much!
The international and unregulated nature of the internet has, up until now, enabled communication that was completely untappable. This should do more for solving that problem, at least for law enforcement authorities (no hackers tracking my traffic please ;) ), giving criminals and terrorists alike nowhere to hide. I for one welcome these measures, as I don't wish to see another 9/11, and presumably neither do the rest of you.
Well.. I'd write something critical of the plan here ... BUT THEY MIGHT BE LISTENING!
I had thought that it was pretty clear. TERRORIST DON'T USE E-MAIL
The internet is so open and not private that it doesn't make a good form of secure communication with out a lot of effort. And it should be pretty obvious when those methods are used since encrypted traffic looks, well, encrypted (DUH).
How can the ability to track every persons usage of the interent help with finding and fighting terrorism. How about convincing people that anger, killing and destruction may get attention but they don't solve problems.
Alric The Mad
How is Internet or any TCP comnmunication different than a real phone, or a letter ? As far as I can tell to watch over and tap your phone or letter authroity need a special judge writing. So why suddenly Internet which is only another form of communication , is soooo different that it need to be surveyed in real time ?
Second, any terrorist communicating message not encrypted over, hidden in picture or other data, or using a code word system is already a dead or arrested terrorist. How THIS system is supposed to rpeevtn another 9/11 when the FAILURE of theuautorithy was to INTERPRET THE DATA and NOT get the data ?
Call me a paranoid , but if you control the communication between people, you control the people too. It looks more like population control than terrorism fight.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's really disgusting how the US governement is abusing the 9/11 attacks to take away the rights of the US citizens. The victims must be spinning in their graves.
Honestly, does anyone believe that the Feds could actually get through all the data? Sure natural language processing could analyze some of the data, but all of it? And really, do we believe that terrorists really so stupid as to put "Attack this Thusday at Place X--Bring Explosives" in their subject lines?
Apart from the practical nature of the collecting and analyzing data, are we just a little too nutty about wanting to feel safe? Homeland Security, watching our neighbors, analyzing what sites I surf, will that really keep terrorists out of the US? Is this all just a bunch of fear motivated policies that will keep us placated while we go about our day, at least until the next event.
Sure we need to be prepared and all, but at least lets demand a little intelligence and thought.
My little rant.
"Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said yesterday that the proposal, which includes a national network operations center, was still in flux. She said the proposed methods did not necessarily require gathering data that would allow monitoring at an individual user level." [Emphasis added]
Just another chip off the mantle of Lady Liberty.
I run a small website for news and discusion. Last month I had 15,000 visits and served up over 500,000 pages.
How many visits does slashdot get? How many page views? Ebay? MSNBC? Weatherchannel? Tom's Hardware?
Does anyone here actually understand the magnitude of pages, sites, and information that they are proposing on watching and filtering?
The number is mind boggling.
We have folks comparing this to another step twords 1984. In readiong their comments, I wonder if they've even read the book?
All this "surveillance" of the web will accomplish is a useless oversized database with statistics that will take people years to get a grasp on. It'll be a case of "too much information" that won't be easily collated - and hence , pretty useless.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Good. It's scary when a government can't trust it's own people.
There's something wrong with all of this.
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
After all, nothing assures freedom like constant, unchecked surveillance.
As far as I can tell to watch over and tap your phone or letter authroity need a special judge writing.
Although this isn't really an English sentence, I'll respond. You missed it. Several laws have been enacted in the past few months so that law enforcement people don't even need a warrant (aka: "special judge writing"). They can already listen to/watch anything we say/do without any kind of warrant or even reason. Orwell's 1984 arrived several months ago, they're just tidying up the details now.
Suck me off and swallow, Ashcroft.
no, no it wont. That's why you combine it with PGP or other favorite encryption tool. It seems Bush knows I transferred a 640MB enmcrypted file last night. It must be an .iso, pirate!
NSA spends lots of money decrypting it to reveal a looping video of me laughing at them, telling in Soviet Russia jokes, and http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com about 10 times.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
What really gets me is that the governments (UK and US are equally bad with regards to this) think that because your online activity can be tracked it should be. They seem to think that 'digital rights' count for less than ordinary ones. Can you imagine the uproar if the government made everyone wear a GPS/mobile thing. That recorded every conversation you had and everywhere you went. That would be unacceptable to jo public so why should this be treated with any lesser contempt.
The regulation of investigtory powers act (RIP act) in the uk is trying to achieve the same thing. But no one has worked out who is going to pay for it yet. I can imagine an 'online security' tax being added to my ISP bill. So I pay to be spied on. Great.
How long do you think it will be before you have to show ID before you log on at an internet café
In fact in today's news there is an article about the phone companies being flooded with request for information on mobile calls and locations. Half a million in a year. Over 1% of phone users in the UK would have been checked up.
This will not stop terrorism, it will just mean that the terrorists will have to find some other way to communicate, or a more sneaky way of doing it online.
I've skimmed the entire proposal document and read the first third completely (killing a small forest by printing out the pdf document).
I'm not going to cite details as I don't currently have the block of paper in front of me.
However, I do feel I have to comment. This document is based in fear, not hope. It is not a workable proposition in the United States of America, but would have been very well accepted in the former East Germany or in almost any coldwar eastern block nation.
Under the proposals all persons accessing information or making transactions electronically, or having transactions made for them, would be monitored, recorded and archived at all times for later retrieval under unstated conditions, by unstated persons, for vague purposes of security.
Stalin would have loved it.
The next step beyond this would be to outlaw any and all transactions that were deliberately masked to try and hide from the evesdroppers the origin, content, or time of the communication, because if you feel the need to hide, you must have something to hide, and you are assumed to be a criminal.
I can't speak for everyone, but I do know that I felt safer on September 12th 2001 than I will on September 12th 2005 if all this continues.
The article notes that such a plan would require Congressional and regulatory approval.
So with this on our radar, privacy advocates and reasonable-minded citizens can practice good ol' democracy, and stop this thing in its tracks.
It's worked before (c.f. Clipper Chip), and can work again.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
The Los Angeles Times? Seattle Times? London Times? High Times? ;-)
It's good to remember that the New York Times, although a very good newspaper, isn't the only "Times" and that not everyone is fixated on the East Coast.
I voted for Al Gore. Thank you, that is all. :)
As for G. W., I doubt that he's going to get voted in during the 2004 elections, since it's doubtless by now that he's going to have half the country nuked by screwing with Iraq.
And now, for the story... this man has been using the Terrorist Protection trademark to invade our privacy, step on our constitutional rights. And he still didn't catch bin Laden.
So essentialy this plan means another taxation of internet acces while it also means (as ussual) loss of some privacy and (as ussual) higher potential for abuse for (as ussual) not that big increase in safety (if any increase at all) for (not just, as ussual) US tax payers.
(By "ussual" I mean "as was alredy reported on ./ with regards to some other attempts". Or at least I hope those were mainly attempts.)
hany
Everybody, especially Slashdotters, tend to be such critics. Doesn't anybody think that an open discussion (including the merits of the proposal) on the topic is best for all of us? Doesn't it make sense to have a system in place where authorities can track Internet communications of an individual or organization if there is strong evidence that such tracking is justified? Sure, sure "Big Brother is watching us" blah blah, but isn't he always going to be? Isn't one of the best solutions to make it illegal for the feds to perform this kind of monitoring unless they have strong evidence that from a court that it should be performed and then allow them to put this sort of system in place? Why not treat it more mail or the phone system or like a search warrant?
There was an artist last week who spread 28 large black boxes painted with the word FEAR around Grand Central Station in New York. It shut down the terminal for 5 hours.
Bush et. al don't know what to do. The idea that disenfranchised individuals from a foreign nation might sacrifice themselves and find some domestic support for their cause has him baffled. Like anybody else when he is scared, he is doing anything he can think of, no matter how useless.
Homeland security seemed draconiun, redundant, but understandable considering what the Army/Navy/AF/Marines have been doing over the past few years. Then unlimited detention without arrest, INS prisions, refusing entry for stage performers, a dangerous smallpox vaccination program, a symbolic war with IRAQ, threats against North Korea...
Bush is scared, and helpless. He knows that the information was available to law enforcement before the attack, but he doesn't have enough finesse to understand that processing information is harder than gathering it. So, by the "Bigger is Better" American mentality, he is trying to fix America's intelligence agency by gathering tremendous amounts of basically irrelevant data. Not that this president sees the elegance of checks and balances: let's be honest, if he could get away with Ashcroft declaring him emperor, he would have done it a long time ago. But all that information and power will at some point be used wrongly. Not that it will be abused, but it will be used wrongly. History has proven that.
It's funny, but if the terrorists were attempting to shread American values and traditions, thus making it an unliveable country and reducing it's power on a world stage, then they have succeeded. And by not reappearing and therefore presenting an elusive target, the service their cause even further.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
-C
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
Since everything you write and create is copyrighed and since they'll have to outlaw encryption on transmissions across the Internet, they will have to make it illegal to encrypt copyrighted material. Should make the DMCA !circumvention provisions pretty moot WRT Internet downloads....
(OK I know they'll set it up so the "little people" get fucked while "trusted" big businesses can do whatever they want, but at least I tried to present what is IMO the logical outcome of this...)
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Article VI refers to treaties and to legislation which implements the Constitution.
If the Constitution had erased all the authority of states, it would never have been ratified.
The Federalist Papers are a fascinating look at how people were thinking at the time. They actually saw state power as a hedge against a tyrannical national government.
The Tenth Amendment, paraphrased, says that the Federal government doesn't have any powers beyond what's explicitly in the Constitution. It's not completely a dead letter even now. Today's Supreme Court has overruled parts of Federal laws (Brady Bill, Violence Against Women Act, another whose name I forget) on the grounds that the national government was usurping state prerogatives.
That's why we needed the Fourteenth Amendment. When states became the oppressive ones, the only way for the national government to intervene was to add a provision to the Constitution that would allow intervention.
That's why the tag end of so many amendments is "Congress shall have power to enforce this amendment by apropriate legislation". Congress wouldn't have the power otherwise.
The AC is right that the Civil War and Reconstruction made a huge change from what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Once "state's rights" become a code word for racism, things were never the same.
So is there hope of using state power to block Internet surveillance? No. Legally, the Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That definitely includes the Internet. Practically, can you imagine how your state police would stop your packets from being logged?
Fortunately when you live in the day where Bob Barr supports the ACLU, I don't think this'll get off the ground (or if it does, it'll be crippled or shot down shortly after).
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Yes, and the proof-of-concept for centralized internet monitoring is already underway in China. The Bush administratio has only to follow their lead, an we too will be on track to be as free as China one day!
- US cracks down on encryption.
- Encryption work moves offshore.
- Washington realizes futility of its efforts.
- US recants.
All that was accomplished was to harm the US economy.When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
Besides, it would be against the Canadian Constitution's provisions on privacy and security of the person. Any citizen could then sue their ISP and require that all packets not specifically bound for the US not be routed through an American-monitored node.
Third point - this will just spur people to use encryption and/or anonymizers.
Last point - As a matter of sovereignty, other governments may then decide that all packets passing outside their borders be encrypted by the local ISP.
You might enjoy Arthur C's take on this (Light of other days).
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
Where does it all end? Do I get accused of being a terrorist because I believe that George W. Bush and his administration are a bunch of fascist criminals who are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights -- and dare to publish said information? Am I "encouraging terrorism" and thus a "person of interest" for saying such?!
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Doors often impede surveillance. Terrorists and criminals hide behind closed doors as they plot destruction, build bombs, sell drugs, plan murders. Think of how much safer you'll be after all of those irresponsible doors are removed, so that legitimate law enforcement can actively safeguard your freedoms without impediment.
I don't think this helps anything, anyone who wants to "talk" on the internet is going to use SSL/SSH if they know what they are doing, so this means they would have to crack every single key and filter through everything is realtime, and have monkeys at terminals watching for anything suspicious. I don't think this is going to help anything, it is only a waste of tax dollars and abuse of the whole 9/11 tragedy. I don't think groups like the taliban uses the internet anyway.
Which means that if/when this monitoring system is in place, it would be in the US government's "security" interest to try to make all traffic of interest go through US-controlled territory at some point.
Which, in turn, means that the US government would be very happy to see US-based multinational corporations gain control of all the main routing points worldwide, because those corps would already have the monitoring technology in place. Even though the monitoring laws should only require monitoring in US territory, what would prevent the US government from making secret deals with those companies to monitor non-US traffic, too? Only if the monitoring can be detected and revealed by third parties can we be sure that this is not happening.
In other words, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - unless there is a simple, reliable way for us peons to monitor the monitoring, the potential for abuse will only be restrained by the conscience of those using the monitoring. Not a good situation.
I think you make a good point. Plus it works both ways:
Here's a realworld example. Guy emails me from San Francisco. I'm in Los Angeles. For reasons that escape everyone, his email usually goes thru Singapore, where presumably anyone with the tools and the urge can read it.
How would the U.S. gov't feel about other countries monitoring what is nominally U.S. traffic, but thru the mysteries of internet routing, didn't happen to stay within U.S. borders enroute? How does this differ from the U.S. monitoring say British or Chinese traffic that happened to get routed thru the U.S.??
(Hint: There is no *logical* difference.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The following is from the article you reference:
District attorney Mike Shrunk is the one city leader who seems amused by having his trash stolen but he maintains that police have a legitimate reason to take trash, whereas the media does not.
"If I'm engaged in criminal conduct, perhaps I give up some of those privacy rights. And this is what's it's all about, and it's a legitimate place for the courts to weigh in," said Shrunk.
The whole issue here and in this referenced article is that the police, under existing law, could, for example go through people's trash, if they first obtain a warrant. If for example, Mr. Shrunk were, as he says, engaged in criminal conduct, it should be simple for the police to obtain a warrant, and then search his trash.
It seems that none of these officials have common sense... Do not waste my tax money on new laws or organizations when we have what we need already. Lets let the existing organizations perform their duties using existing laws.
(I am not a lawer.)
Yes, I said "nineteen fifty four," and not "nineteen eighty four."
...and you've got it about right.
The phrase of the day is "chilling effect," brought to you by the letters H, U, A, and C.
Or isn't anyone else thinking that TIA (and friends) is a little closer to the HUAC than Orwell's book? Just alias "Commies" to "terrorists," and it works just fine.
I mean this new plot is like, well, imagine -- naah, hold on, I have to say it -- imagine a Beowulf Cluster of Joe McCarthys...
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Can't be done. To "monitor" the whole internet would require that all traffic pass through a central point
But it can be attempted. Maybe you don't have 100% coverage. But the fact of the matter is, large chunks of the net do flow through finite points. Witness the concern in previous months over Worldcom's business problems -- their pipes carry a significant percentage of internet traffic.
Besides, it would be against the Canadian Constitution's provisions on privacy and security of the person. Any citizen could then sue their ISP and require that all packets not specifically bound for the US not be routed through an American-monitored node.
And how that has stopped CSIS (the canadian security equivalent to the CIA) in the past? Or, for that matter, how would that stop a US government agency operating outside of the jurisdiction of Canada? And, finally, how many citizens would have the time, resources, and commitment to 'sue their ISP'?
Third point - this will just spur people to use encryption and/or anonymizers.
I seem to recall people claiming this point when PGP first came out. Has widespread adoption of encryption tools come about? No. Will it? Don't think so -- it's too inconvenient for regular usage.