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."

Comments

My take

[Queelix]

I think this sounds like a great idea. Sincerely, Satan

Is this not espionage?

[fatgav]

I am not a US citizen. If they are monitoring everything on the net, how would they know that I am British and not American. If they do build up a profile of foreign populations, does this classify as espionage?

In my case, Blair sucks up to bush anyway, but what if I was chinese or something?

States are asserting their rights

[bugpit]

This Wired article notes that states are rapidly passing legislation that locally prohibits much of the federal gov't activities outlined in the Patriot Act.

Guess who's next?

[Yo Grark]

The RIAA, and MPAA will want to "watch" the internet through this network and nab any Tom dick and Harry who pass music files.

Of course, independant music won't be distinguished in order to make thier stats look better "43 trillion music files were traded last year, and our revenue only increased by 2 billion. If we make each of those users pay every time they trade a file, we could make gazillion's (to quote jk) more. Of course we'd give 1 million to the governemnt for letting us use their network for our own commercial gain.

Folks, the internet is dying because it became the true meaning of free speech, communication and information. Corporations are slowly killing the net, which requires Goverments to get their hands in on regulating things.

I don't use the net as much as I did because of all the popups, spam and corporate cluelessness.

If anyone knows of a protected Sub-net (encrypted, anonymous use) please let me know to restore my faith.

Thank you.

Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering

Re:It's about time

[vaguelyamused]

These measures will in no way prevent another 9/11. Anyone serious and able to perform terrorist operation like 9/11 is not going to allow themselves to fall prey to blanket security restrictions such as this. Sleeper cell attacks such as 9/11 are not going to be stopped by your government scanning your e-mail and internet connection for words like "bomb" and "explosion". A properly planted cell will already have its goal established upon arrival to the US and will be triggered by a very inane signal that would be designed not to arouse suspicion.

What monitoring everyone all the time does is make everyone a suspect, thus in the eyes of law enforcement a criminal. Everyone's Internet usage is automatically monitored regardless of probable cause. Blanket surveillance regardless of guilt or cause is the foundation for the police state that Bush, Ashcroft, Poindexter, etal. wish so desperately to establish.

Difference with a phone ?

[aepervius]

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.

stop raping the memory of the 9/11 victims

[haedesch]

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.

Re:It's about time

[Kierthos]

Benjamin Franklin actually said it best:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."

Kierthos

The Transparent Society

[DGolden]

I STRONGLY suggest people read The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose between Privacy and Freedom? before drawing conclusions about surveillance technologies

Here's the publisher's blurb:

The Transparent Society
Will Technology Force Us To Choose Between Privacy And Freedom?

In New York and Baltimore, police cameras scan public areas twenty-four hours a day. Huge commercial databases track you finances and sell that information to anyone willing to pay. Host sites on the World Wide Web record every page you view, and "smart" toll roads know where you drive. Every day, new technology nibbles at our privacy.Does that make you nervous?

David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability.The Transparent Society is a call for "reciprocal transparency." If police cameras watch us, shouldn't we be able to watch police stations? If credit bureaus sell our data, shouldn't we know who buys it?

Rather than cling to an illusion of anonymity-a historical anomaly, given our origins in close-knit villages-we should focus on guarding the most important forms of privacy and preserving mutual accountability. The biggest threat to our freedom, Brin warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people, now by too many.A society of glass houses may seem too fragile. Fearing technology-aided crime, governments seek to restrict online anonymity; fearing technology-aided tyranny, citizens call for encrypting all data.

Brins shows how, contrary to both approaches, windows offer us much better protection than walls; after all, the strongest deterrent against snooping has always been the fear of being spotted. Furthermore, Brin argues, Western culture now encourages eccentricity-we're programmed to rebel! That gives our society a natural protection against error and wrong-doing, like a body's immune system. But "social T-cells" need openness to spot trouble and get the word out.

The Transparent Society is full of such provocative and far-reaching analysis.The inescapable rush of technology is forcing us to make new choices about how we want to live. This daring book reminds us that an open society is more robust and flexible than one where secrecy reigns. In an era of gnat-sized cameras, universal databases, and clothes-penetrating radar, it will be more vital than ever for us to be able to watch the watchers. With reciprocal transparency we can detect dangers early and expose wrong-doers. We can gauge the credibility of pundits and politicians. We can share technological advances and news. But all of these benefits depend on the free, two-way flow of information.

In The Transparent Society, award-winning author David Brin details the startling argument that privacy, far from being a right, hampers the real foundation of a civil society: accountability. Using examples as disparate as security cameras in Scotland and Gay Pride events in Tucson, Brin shows that openness is far more liberating than secrecy and advocates for a society in which everyone (not just the government and not just the rich) could look over everyone else's shoulders.

The biggest threat to our society, he warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people not by too many.

David Brin has a Ph.D. in physics, but is best known for his science fiction. His books include the New York Times bestseller The Uplift War, Hugo Award-winner Startide Rising, and The Postman. He lives in Encinitas, California.

Re:The Transparent Society

[YeOldeGnurd]

If police cameras watch us, shouldn't we be able to watch police stations?

Not in Portland OR, apparently. Prosecutors and politicians claimed the right to go through people's trash whenever the police wished to, without a warrant. The used the argument in court that anyone has the right to go through anyone else's trash. So two Willamette Week reporters put that claim to the test by taking and analyzing the trash from the homes of the District Attorney, the Mayor, and the Chief of Police. It looks like the reporters will get arrested soon. You can read the story here

Thanks, Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to take a moment to thank Bush and Ashcroft for their hard work in coming up with this plan. While I understand that it may not be popular among the slashdot crowd, I believe that it's neccessary in order to ensure our freedom.

After all, nothing assures freedom like constant, unchecked surveillance.

Re:Difference with a phone ?

[NineNine]

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.

Not in America (We Pray)

[oldstrat]

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.

Re:Bummer.

[pizpot]

The more data the US gov gets, the more they slip. Remember, the snipers were stopped 5 times after shootings at roadblocks. See, data is worth sh*t if you don't use it. This plan is really for the lawyers, and those making money. That way they can have proof that pirating, kiddie porn and the like happened, or catching terrorists after the building already collapsed.

FEAR

[Chris Canfield]

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

Just like the TIA - Same arguments apply

[Badgerman]

This is the same as the Total Information Awareness joke. Let me repeat my arguments:

• This has to actually work. Good luck with that.
  
• If somehow the information is collected, good luck going through it.
  
• If despite these challenges something gets running, expect it to be some shuddering, misused Frankenstien. Enjoy the bumbling antics of the new Keystone Kops, using imperfectly collected and badly mined data.
  
• This will create a nice, bureaucratic bottleneck that has all sorts of chances to screw up.
  
• This will produce some nice central repositories and agencies - great targets for terrorist attacks.
  
• This will annoy people even more, and it UTTERLY humiliates America in front of the world. The Bastion of Freedom, going to war with everyone for Freedom . . . spying on its own citizens.
  

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).

Re:great news!!

[tomhudson]

Can't be done. To "monitor" the whole internet would require that all traffic pass through a central point, or at least pass through territory controlled by the US of A.

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.

I've read 1984

[twitter]

We have folks comparing this to another step twords 1984. In readiong their comments, I wonder if they've even read the book?

The central thesis of 1984 was that people will abuse the power they have. Once technology was developed to monitor your thoughts, thoughts would be monitored and any thought that might detract loyalty from the government would be outlawed. The term was thoughtcrime and it was related to sexcrime. Any means to achieve this state, including bombing your own people would be used and perpetual warfare was required to motivate the people and waste their efforts. We are very much on the way here in the US.

First, examine thoughtcrime. We already have laws against thoughts such as "hate crime" laws which gauge the intent of the criminal rather than actions and harm done. The federal government has long forbiden any group recieving federal funds from donating to "hate" groups. That's disturbing on it's own but much more so in a society where more than 1 in 4 $ of GDP are federal spending. Symbols are being outlawed, words and phrases are not far behind. These new monitoring plans are extensions of police "profiling" efforts and Carnivore. Now, thanks to Patriot and USA Act, domestic spying including inflitration of religious organizations, is legal. Illegal activities are being encouraged, with the understanding that it will lead to evidence that CAN be legaly used, and that is the spirit of these new laws. Today, your thoughts will get you monitored and blacklisted which involves a real loss of privalidge. Soon, those thoughts might get you raided and jailed. As the machinery of thought monitoring improves, more thoughts will become illegal. This new survailence system WILL be targeted, and hence very useful. Everybit as useful as the random checks of indviduals by two way televisions of 1984. The could be watching, so you have to behave, forever.

Now examine what the government is willing to do to achieve the above violation or your rights and expansion of it's power. I have yet to see reasonable proof of exactly who was responsible for 9/11, and so have not put the CIA or Israeli secret police off my list. Ossama was trained and supplied by the CIA when the struggle was against the Soviets. Any institution that has gained since then is suspect. There is no end to the "war against terror" A war against individual criminals is not a war, it's a police action, but that will have to do for now. Soon enough, we can get ourselves into a shooting war. Orwell predicted that all the centers of culture would be wiped out in order to make the new perpetual oligarchical states. I hope the folks willing to trade a little freedom for a little security are not also willing to trade a little prosperity for a little order.

And that is enough duckspeak for me today. File it, it will come in handy when The Book of rebelious thoughts is compiled to trap the disobedient. Oldthinkders unbellyfeel Ingsoc!

This is not America.

[Damon C. Richardson]

First I'll address the intenet monitoring.

YES IT CAN BE DONE!
The internet is a very dangerous tool of the people. The working classes.... Untill not the digital divide and kept most of the concerns of our and other governments out of or even off the internet. You see ideas are more powerful then gun, missles, plains and tanks. Collectivly we have power. Divided we have a mess of opposing ideas. I believe it was richard nixon that first coined the phrase "The silent majority". He used this as a justification for trying to keep his office of president. The idea was that... Sure everyone was shouting for his removal but there was a "Slient Majority" that wanted him to stay in office. History has shown that this "Majority" was only 35% of the population.

The Metaphor of War.

When I was 17 I joined the Army. I did this because it has been a family tradition that I thought was valuable experiance. I was a patriot joining to help defend our way of life and to attest my belief in the constitution of the united states. This country has been defended by 4 generations of Richardsons. When you join the Army you are asked to give a oath to uphold the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I'm not making this up. So why does the powers that be want to remove personal freedoms?

Does anyone remember when the War on Drugs was started against the American people? Well It never affected me. All the people in public housing that have to concent to searches going in and out of there homes. After all there was a "Majority" of people that believed in it right? The war on drugs is just a Metaphor! There is no real war going on except against the american people. All the shooting in south america and other drug producing countries are by rebels that actually might have a good reason to take up arms against their governments. I don't live there... I only know whats going on from what I read on the internet. Well years later we are still fighting the war on drugs. Low and behold searching people in public housing was not enough. We need roving check points on our borders. We need survalance of everyone. We go after people that in most cases are not even stronge enough to commit a violent crime. All in the name of keeping america safe from the drug crazed elements in our world. It's even created whole new types of corperations. Prison corperations that live off of a steady stream of bodies that need to be warehoused.

Does anyone remember the first Metaphor war in this country. Correct me if I'm wronge but I believe it was "The War on Poverty" started by the carter adminstation. I have a personal belief that this war was not sexy enough for the republicans. Because we seemed to drop that pretty fast when the poor started to be viewed as Crazed Crack addicts. Now if we as a nation were going to take up a impossible war this is the one we should be fighting. I don't think anyone can disagree with this. But we don't... We funnel in millions to law enforcement to fight drug use in the form of locking up the users. Ask a cop if he feels good sending a 18 year old to jail for having drugs. I've known A+ students that served 10 years for drug charges. What service did we get from that. A really scary person that could have been something grand. I don't want dealers on the street and I DON'T want drugs legal.

Which brings me to the War on Terrorism. Hey I'm all for protecting the country/world against bad guys. But let me ask this question.... If we stoped pouring resources into a failing drug war based on locking up the users. And instead turned to actually tighting up our borders couldn't we maybe get more truck, ships and planes searched for both drugs and weapons?

Where is all this leading? Your focusing on a battle not the war. Your focusing on the symptoms not the root cause. You watch your government take more and more away from you and you sit in your homes and pretend that you are so aware that it makes you a better person. Well did you vote? you did? did you get someone that did not vote to vote? Did you write your congressman to show disaproval of the fact that they signed the Patriot act after only reading a 3 or 4 page summary? I know that NO ONE was there to say "Hey you can't search these people just because they live in public housing". And I bet no one will be there to stop this landslide that is taking over the nation. We need to be vocal with this failing form of government. It's not a democratecy if only 40% of the population votes.

As a nation we need to find the root cause of this encrochment of our person rights and freedoms. I believe the root cause to be the lack of respect for the constitution by our government leaders. They will sit and tell you that for your safety we do these things.... They are lying! They do these things because the benefit the people that got them into office. The corperations and special interest groups. So when you whine about your posts to the everquest board shouldnt' be monitored your kidding you self. They can do what they want because even with the internet we are not ready to band together under the banner of freedom outlined in the constitution of the united states of america. So when they start replacing internet routers with computers that log ever packet. All to be gathered and processed by a government contractor that will be using your tax money to read your e-mail to mom. When the police get information on what pron movie you purchase with your credit card. When the army comes knocking on your door to recruit your 17 year old son because their records show that he can follow orders in his online games. Don't Panic. Because its all in the name of your protection.

"Silence means security, Silence means approval". --REM

P.S. spelling and grammer errors left in due to the fact that I really don't have the time to type this in the first place.

Re:Bummer.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

...you tipped your hand that you are not a US citizen. You have no rights in the US.

Where did you come up with this nugget of wisdom? Non-US citizens, at least while within US borders, are supposed to be extended the same rights and protections afforded citizens, with the exception of those rights afforded exclusively with citizenship - such as voting, serving in elected office and on juries, etc.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independance do not suppose rights because of fortuitous national origin, but because these are asserted to be the inalienable rights of mankind. It is this concept of rights afforded to all that made the US potentially more promising than other attempts to define what civilization means.

It is now this basic concept which is being callowly disregarded, as manifest in the suspension of habeus corpus, etc., that we have recently witnessed. These things are now so poorly cherished, and so carelessly transmitted by systems of news and education, that you are even in ignorance of them. These rights are not the ephemera of US nationality, they are its raison d'etre.

Every right and every respect denied someone because they are a foriegn national, is a right you, as an American, are being denied too...

Why is it that non-Americans are better informed and educated about the US than its own natives?

Think hard. You know who betrayed you.

Re:It wasn't the Civil War...

[ninewands]

Quoth the poster:

The question here is whether states can impede legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement. The answer is (now) no.

The local resolutions being passed by the cities do not instruct local law enforcement to impede federal law enforcement. They merely instruct local law enforcement not to ASSIST ... this is a different thing entirely.

On the subject of "legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement" please explain to me WHERE in the constitution the federal government is given ANY police power. Is it in Article I? (The legislative branch) ... no ... is it in Article II? (The Executive Branch) ... no ... well, maybe it's in Article III (the Judiciary) ... well, no ... it's not there either. Well, gee, the FBI, BATF, Coast Guard, and Secret Service seem to LACK any Constitutional basis for existing beyond enforcement of laws enacted under the Commerce Clause or some OTHER area like counterfeiting where the federal government has a specific power to enforce a narrow set of laws. Get the message?? The Federal Government has NO general police power!

They have significance via the 10th A., and certain federal efforts to regulate have been deemed too intrusive, but the states are in no position to impose a stricter version of the 4th A. than the federal constitution already has.

Actually, you are wrong on that ... there are NUMEROUS cases in which the Supreme Court has held that the Federal standard for enforcement of the 4th Amendment is the MINIMUM standard the States may adopt. The States are perfectly free to be MORE protective of their citizens' rights than the federal standard, if they desire, but they CANNOT be LESS protective.

Oh, yes ... IAA(non-practicing)L

The Ideological Time At The Tone is 1954 -- beep!

[Interrobang]

Yes, I said "nineteen fifty four," and not "nineteen eighty four."

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...

...and you've got it about right.