Feds Recruiting ISPs To Combat Cyber Threats

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."

Comments

reverse wikileaks, sort of

[TheGratefulNet]

so, while the citizenry are trying to find out more about what goes on inside the government, the government wants part of this 'fun' and continues to collect data on its citizens.

wikileaks: bad when it tells about gov info; good when its THEM collecting data on US.

I realize that its not really a 'leaks' concept, per se; but it sure is about collecting info and who gets the 'right' to see info and who does not.

oh, and 'monetary fund'. yeah, we know that you guys only have our 'best interests' at heart (...)

Re:reverse wikileaks, sort of

[AmberBlackCat]

Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.

Re:reverse wikileaks, sort of

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that this operation is actually a social engineering operation, to spread certain views about censorship into the minds of the ISPs. Because when they do it "voluntarily", you don't need to create any unpopular laws.
In a few months, you will all see censorship being enabled, and you will not fight it, but either just accept it as "something I can't change", or even argue for it. At least that's the plan.
And looking at how well they managed to get you all to agree to mass-murdering over 100,000 people in 3 wars, set up governments even more fake than the US one in a ton of countries (from eastern Europe straight to Iraq), etc, I can't imagine the plan not working.
Hell, nearly all people don't even acknowledge the existence of government social engineering. When everybody has been doing it for decades. Especially the very businesses controlling government nowadays.

Of course not

[jhaverkamp]

Of course not, they'll be monitored, intercepted and stored by ISPs, who will then share them instead.

Fantastic...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"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...

Re:Fantastic...

[Froeschle]

This is how America works. Officially on paper we have more freedoms than anyone in the world but in practice it is another story. For example during an internal training session in my company I was recently informed that "our constitutional rights cease to exist in the workplace". The government may be restricted from directly trampling on our rights (which is debatable), but there is nothing in the Constitution that keeps private companies from doing so. Everything seems to have become a privilege rather than a right and privileges are a lot easier to take away both directly and indirectly. For example if you criticize the government your privilege to board an aircraft can be taken away and with that your privilege to have a job and be a normal member of society. The US Constitution is in great need of an overhaul.

Re:Fantastic...

[TheSpoom]

For example during an internal training session in my company I was recently informed that "our constitutional rights cease to exist in the workplace"

Your company is incorrect. 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.

Of course, there is a real problem when the government uses outsourced third party companies to put a veil over otherwise unconstitutional actions, like you mentioned.

Re:Fantastic...

[arth1]

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.

Re:Yes another nail in the coffin

[jc42]

America has really gone downhill. The country that started the whole freedom thing never moved on.

In particular, the US is still stuck with that Constitution that forbids government to perform "unwarranted search and seizure", but permits such actions by private corporations, who can then sell the information to government agencies. Until the US learns to extend the constitutional freedoms to all organizations, this will continue to provide a workaround for the Constitution's limits on the government.

This is much of the motive behind the growing American push to hand over most government activities to private corporations. The people pushing for this know quite well what they're doing, and fully intend the corporate world to perform the monitor and control functions that are forbidden to the government.

I wonder if there's a name for this sort of political policy? ;-)

Duplication of effort

[HangingChad]

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."

Because the NSA, DHS and FBI are already doing so much of that your packets would take an extra 20 minutes getting where they're going bouncing around between federal agencies spying on your online activity.

Transparency

[U8MyData]

This is precisely wht we need accountability and transparency within the system, especially on the internet. The net is what it is because it is about as free as anything else. Yes, there are dangers, but so are those on the road, walking down the street or just plain living life. I would also agree; however, leaving security up to the individual is probably not a good thing. I am a systems pro and I know this first hand. But leaving security up to a group that might be influenced by the RIAA, for example, is probably the death of net as we know it.

Re:Yes another nail in the coffin

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there's a name for this sort of political policy? ;-)

"Fascism" perhaps?

Re:Yes another nail in the coffin

[betterunixthanunix]

Every decade we have more not less personal freedoms,

Funny, a century ago you were allowed to grow plants for personal use without having a paramilitary force invade your home, seize your property, and imprison you. These days, the list of plants and chemicals you are not allowed to be in possession of grows year after year, and we no longer bother with democratic processes when determining what is on that list: the Attorney General has the power to declare a drug to be illegal without having to first seek congressional approval. You can be arrested for possession of a drug whose legality was never voted on by your representatives.

Yes, some strides have been made -- it is certainly easier for men to be gay now than it was 50 years ago, and likewise with black people and communists. In that same period of time, despite those improvements, the United States' prison population has grown by orders of magnitude, to the point where we have a larger prison population than any country in the entire world, and have the third largest of any country that ever existed (we still haven't imprisoned more people than Nazi Germany or the USSR). It is not that surprising, though, considering that many American prisons are operated for-profit, and that police forces are actually allowed to use seized assets in drug cases to pay their own salaries (thus giving rise to our self-funded police units, who have been known to get appraisals on property before making an arrest).

Take a look around. This is not 1 step back and 1.1 steps forward, it is 2 steps back and an occasional step forward. You know something is wrong when law enforcement agencies are carrying around military rifles to arrest people for non-violent crimes.

Re:Yes another nail in the coffin

[belthize]

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.

Re:Fighting the last war... better than not

[misexistentialist]

From the government's perspective 9/11 was like Christmas. No need to speculate about future "misuse" of this project; the intent of the project to begin with is to misappropriate funds and authority.

Internet usage after hostile government take over

[neurosine]

The internet has really gone downhill since government regulation was deemed appropriate by the governments themselves. Most tech-savvy individuals are unsurprised, and completely expected said outcome. Yes, it's time to create a new internet without commercial interest. They have (through government intervention) ruined the whole damned thing. Ideas? Comments?