Slashdot Mirror
NSA to Become Government Net 'Traffic Cop?'
OriginalArlen writes "The NSA may be appointed 'Internet traffic cop', overseeing data sharing among US government agencies for Homeland Security, according to an A.P. report on SecurityFocus. Apparently the aim is to improve security of all government networks." This would seem to follow in the footsteps of creating the Department of Homeland Security, since the aim is to enable better sharing of data between government institutions.
...since the aim is to enable better sharing of data between government institutions.
The system, imperfect as it was, got information about the 9/11 attacks to the top of the political food chain in time to do something about it. The president did nothing about it.
The problem isn't reorganizing data sharing. It's reorganizing leadership.
That does not make sense; is not the job of the NSA to brake security of any network in order to easedrop on the conversations? It is a spy agency, not a security agency.
The assumption is that a spy agency will have a good idea what kind of holes would allow other spy agencies to break in. Not a bad idea, IMAO.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
After reading TFA, I'm a little confused. From what I gathered, they won't be "traffic cops" so much network guards slash data escorts. It seems to me that "traffic cops" is misleading, since it implies that they'll have some sort of authority over personal data as well.
Or perhaps I read it wrong, and they'll be setting up speed traps and beating ethnic people.
How does this affect MRO? They're not looking at my traffic, impeding my traffic, or even thinking about my traffic. They're routing government traffic.
/confused.
And they're a government agency.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
...you apparently didn't read the *summary*. From the first *sentence* of the summary:
"The NSA may be appointed 'Internet traffic cop', overseeing data sharing among US government agencies for Homeland Security [...]"
The way the story read at first sounded like it was the NSA reading all internet traffic..
if it's some sort of government central aggregation DB for the various agencies, I dont see why we should have a problem with it.
That's hyperbole.
It's how we have debates over here in America. First we take out the facts. Look at them. Create the most extreme, yet superficially similar argument from them. Then we shoot them in the head, and bury them in a shallow grave. If anyone dares to impugn our integrity we first call them a "name-caller" but in much less flattering terms, and cite the fact that they are thus as proof of their unreasonable bias. If that doesn't work, we turn of their mic while our friends yell at them until we throw to commercial.
Why do we behave in such a course, pointless and ignorant manner? A good question. I'm glad you asked it. We do it for the children. Now I've really got to take a break.
Virtually every government agency is subject to evolution in their mission, especially when we experience a fundamental change in the technological landscape. The NSA probably has more experience, nuts-and-bolts-wise, with this subject than any other collection of humans on the planet. No question they've got the chops, but the budget warfare will be a bloody one, just like it was with the TSA or is shaping up to be on things like border crossing security or container shipment inspection. Compared to years past, these changes are happening very, very quickly. At least the NSA won't have to run out and figure out what sort of people to hire, or invent new tools to understand their mission in this case. It's more a matter of scale, and of getting, say, the IT guys at the Commerce Department to understand their nerdy new friends.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You must forget that we're talking about the people who make the laws. Your statement about whether the NSA can lawfully monitor US citizens shows your lack of thinking here. If it was possible for them to pass a law *creating* the DHS, then it was certainly possible for them to pass a law *modifying* the NSA, FBI, CIA, or whatever other acronym you want.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
The government should take its 'information sharing' cue from college students. You can find just about anything on P2P networks, right? So why not have a secure and authenticated P2P network available to government employees. That way, an FBI agent in Florida looking for information could fire up this application and search on the computers of everyone in the FBI, CIA, and NSA that he had access rights for. This information would be available instantaneously and freely. Think KaZaA + Kerberos. This doesn't seem to be that hard to implement. I even came up with a cute name for it: FiBbIr, the governmental knowledge engine.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
The original reading gives the impression that the NSA is going to be watching all internet traffic, rather than limiting their scope to traffic going between governmental offices and departments.
There's nothing about this that would seem to have a limiting effect on the rights of the general public, only the rights of those sending information from, say, their desk at the State Department to someone else's desk in the DIA.
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Paranoid blathering by people who don't know a firewall from a fire hydrant aside, what TFA is talking about is giving the NSA authority over network security standards. This means that the NSA will CERTIFY that a particular network, say the FDA, meets the minumum standards necessary to take part in the information sharing network of the DHS. They will most likely also audit said networks regularly.
In this light, they will be much more of a building inspector than a traffic cop, ensuring that your foundation is not made out of, say, gasoline soaked asbestos.
Another important point is that they will be looking only at an organizations internal network. They can't control what happens outside the DMZ except to make sensible requirements regarding encryption and the like for sensitive information. (NOT Classified information, that's what SIPRnet is for; the actual term is 'Sensitive but Unclassified')
As TFA pointed out, they have been doing this for some time in select areas of the US Govt. They are really good at it and have the clout to keep disparate agencies in line. The main aim of a decision like this is to ensure that Agent Joe at the FBI is not reluctant to send sensitive information to Agent Laura at the INS because he is worried that their computer security standards are not up to snuff.
Does the NSA spy on the internet? well, duh, probably. Does this article have anything to do with that? Nope.
google these to be less ignorant: INFOSEC, NCSC, 'network defense in depth'