Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Recruiting ISPs To Combat Cyber Threats

Posted by samzenpus on from the a-little-help-here-please dept.

ygslash writes "The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have established a pilot program with leading private defense contractors and ISPs called DIB Cyber Pilot in an attempt to strengthen each others' knowledge base regarding growing security threats in cyberspace. The new program was triggered by recent high-profile hacks of the International Monetary Fund and many others. But don't worry — Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn promises that the new program will not involve "monitoring, intercepting, or storing any private sector communications" by the DOD and DHS."

3 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Fantastic... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The new program will not involve "monitoring, intercepting, or storing any private sector communications" by the DOD and DHS."

    Of course not. Why do you think that the private defense contractors and ISPs are being brought in? They handle that and then pass on the bill and the 'intelligence product' on, and buying that isn't technically any of those things...

    1. Re:Fantastic... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, most of the Constitution's restrictions are on the government specifically, and not on interactions between private entities, like you and your employer. So while your employer is most definitely incorrect, they probably meant to say something like, "you do not have an unlimited right to free speech in the workplace" or "you should not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever in the workplace," which is perfectly valid.

      Which is perfectly valid if, and only if, you have drank the cool-aid. Other countries and cultures treat the expectation of privacy as an inalienable right which you can not sign away in order to choose job over starving. If a company monitors employees, it needs to notify them before each and every incidence, not a blanco "may" in a contract.

      Is this phone call recorded? If you don't know, it's (what in more free countries would be considered illegal) wiretapping, plain and simple. Who owns the equipment is irrelevant - the company owns the toilets too, but that doesn't give them a right to install cameras under the lid.

  2. Re:Yes another nail in the coffin by belthize · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No disagreement on the points you raised, I guess it's a function of how you count, number of people imprisoned or number of freedoms eroded. The former is almost entirely due to drug laws.

    If we just legalized most drugs our prison population would drop precipitously. Pot legalization has been espoused for decades but we're only now finally seeing a slow relaxation of those rules (various medicinal use laws) and actual discussion at the federal level rather than in smoke filled living rooms of decriminalizing in general. I'd argue we're more likely to legalize or relax criminal penalties for drug use over the next 10 years than we were 10 years ago.

    I agree with the points made in the sibling post about illegal search and seizure by corporations needing to be curtailed but I'd still argue it's not as as bad as it has been in other periods of US history, particularly where rail, mines etc were concerned.

    I'm in no way condoning any of the government level stupidity or suggesting since it used to be worse we should be happy with now, just arguing against the hyperbole that we're heading to hell in a hand basket, it's some sort of lost cause or we're actually losing ground. Don't buy it, particularly the latter.