Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Department Developing Cyber Toolkit

Posted by samzenpus on from the like-a-thief-in-the-night dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. State Department, known for its recent RFID passport embarassment, seems to have developed a key tool in the Department of Homeland Security's cyber toolkit for federal agencies. There's not much out there on it other than mention of a tool called SandStorm in a recent press release from State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. According to the site, "SandStorm simultaneously collects, correlates, and analyzes data on multiple computer systems and departs, leaving no trace of its activities. The White House is championing this cyber tool and the Department of Homeland Security has selected it as a cornerstone application for a cyber toolkit being made available to all Federal agencies." Sounds scary to me, but may be a step in the right direction."

9 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Definitely Beneficial by markybob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because this america, not china. our property is supposed to be free from search without a warrant. it has something to do with the constitution...

  2. They that can give up essential by chris_sawtell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Ben Franklin wrote those words over 200 years ago.

    They apply today just as much as they did then.

    Somebody needs to remind the current incumbent of the White House about his nation's history.

    1. Re:They that can give up essential by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Insightful


      He obviously meant that there IS no such thing as "permanent safety" (and there isn't short of being Transhuman and even then you probably have to worry about interstellar gamma ray bursts). Anybody who thinks the US government can make anybody "safe" from anything is a total idiot. They can't even keep the Prez safe as several Prez's have proven by taking bullets.

      And there are no such things as "inessential liberties" since by definition if you are not free to do what you want, you are simply not free. Political freedom is like being pregnant - you either are or you aren't. You either submit to the state in one or more respects, or you don't.

      What you are NEVER free from, however, is the consequences of your free actions - which isn't relevant to the discussion because we are discussing political freedom, not physical or social cause and effect.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  3. Eventually by Hao+Wu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The government will eventually realize that computer technology is bigger than any federal agency.

    Hence, they will likely create a new one, the Department of Computing (not part of the FCC) in order to grow themselves, tax society, and control private citizens. Just like they do for everything else.

    Of course it will be sold as "building bridges" or "advancing technology", etc... Something for our childrens' future, no doubt.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  4. Re:Definitely Beneficial by Skrekkur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have any idea what how slim the chances really are to be killed by terrorists in the US? Even after 9/11 it's next to none. You are far more likely to be in a car accident, die of cancer, get a heart attack or being shot by a family member. This terrorist "threat" is no reason to take away our freedoms and slowly install a police state where the citizens are the "threat". Sure we cannot just ignore the threat but I for one prefer a little "unsafer" world over privacy invading security

  5. Re:Serious? by symbolic · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Remember how the existence of Eschelon was denied until some British guy confirmed that it did in fact, exist? Remember the cheesy "agreement" that the US would not be collecting data on its own citizens, but would have every opportunity to access such data from that collected by any of the four other Eschelon participants? There is absolutely no reason to believe that it WON'T be used on U.S.-owned sites. Even worse, there's absolutely nothing that will stop them, if they so choose.

  6. they spout ish like this for wanna be terroists... by xTantrum · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They must...
    According to the site, "SandStorm simultaneously collects, correlates, and analyzes data on multiple computer systems and departs, leaving no trace of its activities
    How the hell can a goverment - who has so much internal bickering and bureacracy going on, can't even co-ordinate an efficient rescue mission after a hurricane on their OWN SOIL, AFTER THEY JUST GOT TAKEN OUT BY TERROISTS and had ample warnings, and implement RFID tags in passports knowing the security risks and exploits available - expects us to believe they can actually take their collective heads out of their ass and deliver on this. C'mon get your shit togather first on the home front, like savings lives, increasing awareness for science education, available cheap broadband..yada, yada, yada - then come talk to me about this. It really comes down to this. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! see my sig
    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
  7. Beneficial does not mean prudent. by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on buddy, mentioning terrorists is like the latest fad in political correctness subscribers - you must agree or your helping the terrorists. Yes, terrorists use the Internet to communicate, but, so do literally billions of people who are not terrorists. Should they be spied upon benignly at first and maybe less so when abuse(s) finally occur? It's still not as simple as that however as the Internet is used to commit far more crimes a day than terrorists use it for so there should be some kind of forensic tools available to ordering agencies like law enforcement but the use of the software needs oversight and it morally shouldn't be a blanket system unless the risks truly justify that all the way back to the voters in opinion. This kind of thing creeps me out, its could be the software equivalent of the Stasi in old East Germany.

    --
    Shh.
  8. Re:Serious? by Alphabet+Pal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Even worse, there's absolutely nothing that will stop them, if they so choose.

    Actually, we could stop them, easily. As Winston observes in Orwell's 1984, "if the Proles united, they would get rid of Big Brother like a bull shaking flies off of its back". But we won't. We're all afraid of something. When Ian Clarke created Freenet, did we unite in support of him? Mention Freenet on here and see how long it takes somebody to say "nobody's on Freenet except pedophiles. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." If we truly didn't want to be spied on, we wouldn't be, but the truth is that the vast majority of us (even on tin-foil-hat-dot here) do.

    --
    Because you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"