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.
If the NSA becomes the "Internet Traffic Cop", can it be said that 99.9% of the NSA's budget is devoted to pornography?
I'm a big tall mofo.
"Apparently the aim is to improve security of all government networks." 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.
I can't read the article, as my wonderful UK Government overseers have deemed it bad enough to go on the proxy blacklist, but... how is policing Government networks the same as policing the entire Internet???
...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.
The best cops are the ones you don't know are there.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
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.
I'm all for NSA making these classified networks more secure.
... microsoft.com gets hacked, and they send Frank Parker back in time 7 days to fix it...
"I never could come to grips with creating a Department of Homeland Security when we already had a National Security Agency."
The National Security Agency's mandate is nothing at all like DHS's. Not even similar. If you thought about this for three seconds more, you would have also realized that NSA cannot, by law, conduct surveillance on US citizens or on US territory. This would prevent them from doing criminal investigations of any sort, wouldn't it?
This is basically akin to asking why we need the FBI when we have the CIA. The organizations have the same general goal (protect the citizens of the United States), but are supposed to be doing two entirely different things.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I never could come to grips with creating a Department of Homeland Security when we already had a National Security Agency. It seems more like Bush had more out-of-work friends than he had positions to appoint them to.
This is not interesting, this is a political troll. DHS focuses strictly on what its name says: domestic stuff. The NSA, traditionally, is tasked with listening in on those international communications that would imply threats to our interests. The NSA happens to be the best technical match (in terms of expertise and capacity) for helping to secure inter-agency networking, specifically to help keep that info from being cracked. It's a good fit.
On a side note, has anyone else heard that the entrance to the DHS building is in an alley, and the entire office space is about as big is the lobby of the CIA HQ?
That's mostly myth, of course. But the real point is that the CIA's Virginia HQ is a place where thousands of people actually perform analysis and publishing work. The DHS people are more supervisory, and coordinate the domestic security work that's done elsewhere (say, at the TSA).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not really. If you read the 9/11 Commission Report it's pretty clear that the communications were pretty fouled up. It wasn't clear until after flight 93 went down how many aircraft had been hijacked, and what was being done about it.
Best Slashdot Co
- Cryptography : the design and implementation of secret communications.
- Cryptology : the analysis of existing secret communications.
Ever since its inception, it has had these two tasks... making secure codes for this government, and breaking the codes of other governments.Here is their mission statement
There's No Such Agency.
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
The 'effort' will cost virtually nothing more than one of the front end operators tuning up a modem somewhere, or adding a couple extra patches to the spiderweb...
There's a logical reason for doing this - NSA has people already trained, systems already in place, will not cost the tax payer too much extra cash.
DSD is going in a similar direction - no matter how much the public like to jump up and down about it - it's the way of the future. Ok, so ASIO is meant to deal with domestic tapping, but has a very 'strong' history of 'borrowing' DSD personnel for the technical aspects - why 'not' get DSD to do it?
Simplification basically is the reason - no conspiracy theories, it just makes sense. If you are 'shocked' at this move, you are essentially blind to things that have been going on since the 'internet' started.
That's because you don't understand what NSA does.
r tm ent_of_Homeland_Security
"The National Security Agency (NSA) is a United States government agency responsible for both the collection and analysis of message communications, and for the security of government communications against similar agencies elsewhere. It is a part of the Department of Defense. Its eavesdropping brief includes radio broadcasting, both from organizations and individuals, the Internet, and other intercepted forms of communication, especially confidential communications. Its secure communications brief includes military, diplomatic, and all other sensitive, confidential or secret government communications."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA
"The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a Cabinet department of the federal government of the United States that is concerned with protecting the American homeland and the safety of American citizens. This department was created primarily from a conglomeration of existing federal agencies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Depa
Office of the Secretary
Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Resonse
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
National Cyber Security Division
Directorate of Science and Technology
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Secret Service
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!
He then proceeds to add traffic cops, building standards, and interconnectedness to the mix and try to maintain the castle analogy.
I know that analogy and metaphor can be a powerful tool in helping people understand systems, but it is painful to watch a speaker twist and manipulate their explanations trying to fit things into the framework they decided to use.
It also makes me wonder if the speaker is intentionally misleading his audience.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
I know people who have had jobs with a relatively low level security clearance. These people claim that they could hear their phones tap at random times. I can't even imagine what people with high level clearance have to deal with.
The innocence (ignorance) of the early Internet is long gone. The hackers and scammers and spammers and phishers and terrorists have found they can profit from the current state of the Internet. Their exploits will cost us all.
Our freedom and liberties are now fading. We will no longer be anonymous in our posts. The age-old question of liberty tempered by security concerns once again raises it's head.
The NSA may be the new sheriff in town. They will require more money and more computer power than what they have now; but given the will of a security-conscious government, it will happen. Big Brother will be born again, unless a knowledgable judiciary reigns in their power.
It was fun while it lasted. Everything changes.
If it means that the black helecopters abduct those fuckers who keep sending me Nigerian E-Mail scams and phishing scams, I'm all for it. They could stash them in the cell next to Manuel Noriega. Whatever happened to ol' Manuel anyway? Did he ever even get a trial? Is that a black helecopter? Ow! Hey quit it! #^!#@!~ [NO CARRIER]
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
Yeah, you're right - I just woke up, and only caught my bleary-eyed total mistake after hitting submit. The Slashdot CGI took forever to process it, and I scrambled to hit STOP, but too late. I'm going to get pounded for that stupid error. "Should have used the Preview button." :(.
--
make install -not war
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'
a) US citizen
b) Known permanent resident alien
c) Unincorporated association substantially composed of US citizens or resident aliens
d) Corporation is it is incorporated in the US and non directed or controlled by a foreign government.
The NSA is not allowed to collect on any of those entities; see Executive Order 12333 and USSID 18. Of course, there are exceptions, which keep getting broader and more numerous. But if you're a US citizen, you can be reasonably sure that the NSA is not collecting on you.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
Correction to parent post:
"NSA did not have jurisdiction to spy on USA
citizens on USA soil."
That is why the ECHELON project was started.
The British spy on USA citizens, the USA spys
on Canadian citizens, the Canadians spy on the
Australian citizens, and the Australians spy on
the British citizens (or some other variation
thereof). That way, no one country can be
charged directly with spying on its own citizens,
but all the information goes into the black bag.
Today, however, the USA has the USA Patriot Act,
so the government can do what it damn well wants,
when it wants, and how it wants. This is also
why the Intelligence Reform law places more (and
new) powers for domestic surveillance in the
hands of the Department of Defense (rather than
the FBI). Because Dubya?Co can get away with it,
and because that is the way "Rummy" likes it.
Besides, both the CIA and the NSA have been using
a portion of their undisclosed funding to buy up
US shell companies as fronts for aggregating
their domestic footprint. CEOs are ex-military,
ex-intelligence, or ex-government types who have
regularly crossed the "Chinese Wall" between
government and commercial ventures. This is
part of what President Dwight Eisenhower warned
the public about 45 years ago regarding the
military-industrial complex.
If you don't like it, try teleporting into one
of the other dimensions, because that is the way
it is, and even your vote will not get you any
reprieve from this reality.