Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Gov't To Scan More Civilian Infrastructure Traffic

Posted by timothy on from the boy-this-slope-sure-feels-slippery dept.

helix2301 writes with this snippet from NBC News: "The U.S. government is expanding a cybersecurity program that scans Internet traffic headed into and out of defense contractors to include far more of the country's private, civilian-run infrastructure. As a result, more private sector employees than ever before, including those at big banks, utilities and key transportation companies, will have their emails and Web surfing scanned as a precaution against cyber attacks." Further on, the story notes that "By using DHS as the middleman, the Obama administration hopes to bring the formidable overseas intelligence-gathering of the NSA closer to ordinary U.S. residents without triggering an outcry from privacy advocates who have long been leery of the spy agency's eavesdropping."

9 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. yeah, makes perfect sense by new+death+barbie · · Score: 4, Funny

    'cause everybody trusts the DHS.

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:yeah, makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'cause everybody trusts the DHS.

      While it would be nice to believe that this is sarcasm, and while most slashdotters don't trust the DHS, most nongeeks do trust the DHS. And there's whole, "If you don't have anything to hide then who cares..." that most people believe in.

    2. Re:yeah, makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "more private sector employees than ever before, including those at big banks, utilities and key transportation companies, will have their emails and Web surfing scanned as a precaution against cyber attacks"

      I don't follow the logic of this. Scanning our people's stuff is going to protect us from outside attacks, or attacks by outside agencies done by their people here? How so?

      "The Department of Homeland Security will gather the secret data and pass it to a small group of telecommunication companies and cyber security providers that have employees holding security clearances, government and industry officials said. Those companies will then offer to process email and other Internet transmissions for critical infrastructure customers that choose to participate in the program."

      So we, that is, our own government agencies, don't have the manpower, equipment, or expertise, or some combination, so the secret info from the various intel folks will be used to determine the scans mentioned in first quote, then the scans' results will pass to a private group that's going to offer to do - what, exactly? - for those who might be affected, if, that is, they join up somehow, somewhere?

      All I can make of it is a foot in the door kind of thing, scan hell out of biz/personal e-stuff, pass it through a clearinghouse of interested parties, and use it for something something. Oh, yeah, to protect us from some cyber. This whole thing seems inside-out and backwards. Then it's "you're with us or against us (nice cyber you got there, hate to see some cyber done to it)" all done by selling one thing, calling it another, and actually doing a third thing. I think.

      Can someone clarify this shit?

  2. I can see positives, but by ALeader71 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I still don't trust the government. If this was to track malware, botnets, or attempts to attack vital parts of our infrastructure, I'd be all for it. However I also know this will be used to clandestinely monitor everyone's communication. While I fall into the "nothing to hide" category, the definition of "nothing to hide" is flexible and ever changing. The truth is, in a way, I do hide. A lot. I don't mouth off on social media sites. I don't put my political opinions into forums. I limit confrontation to in-person or via telephone communication. We already live in an age of online surveillance. This new level of government surveillance is just the next step.

    I look forward to the rise of the DarkNets!

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
    1. Re:I can see positives, but by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're already here. They are just not globally announced and touted as the next best thing because "people who know" got wary after what happened to "their" Internet. Once the unwashed masses got in, things went downhill. For reference, see file sharing. You know, in the good ol' days, nobody gave a damn. Sure, the RIAA wasn't too excited about it, but the damage was low, so why bother? More and more people came and once it became trivially easy, the lobbying started and we have the mess we have today.

      Can you imagine what an issue blueboxing would have been if it wasn't limited to a handful of phreaking enthusiasts? AT&T would have wanted their heads. And we're certainly not talking about the probation sentence Draper got, this would have reached insane heights akin to what we see today with punishments for copyright infringement. So, it was ... well, basically just a little nuisance.

      Can you imagine what happens if Darknets go the way of torrents? Everyone using them, essentially rendering the whole shiny surveillance technology a matter for the recycle bin? If you think then we'd win, think again and ponder who your "enemy" is in this game. Hint: He makes the rules.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. How naive do you have to be? by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After the AT&T revelation, why would you believe they aren't ALREADY scanning pretty much everything they can?

  4. Re:Americans paying for big biz cheapness by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The run for the bottom started way earlier, you can't blame the chimp for everything. Looking at the US for the past decades, I dare say the whole mess started with Reagan or no later than Bush Sr.

    What this country, or any country, could well need is the kind of politicians we had after WW2. Say what you want, I still think Eisenhower was the best since 45.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Cyber attack against utilities? by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My power company won't even trim the stinkin' trees. When the lights go out, how will we differentiate between an attack and normal operations?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. clarifying that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea is really not to prevent law breaking but instead provide justification after the fact.

    Say or do something that offends officialdom? Now your past actions can be used against you.

    If you were watching TV and some plot point about exposives happen and you decide to go search on that plot point - now officialdom can claim you are a wannabe terrorist and place you under lock and key and THEN state how wonderful the new system is, because it prevented you from getting the explosives you expressed an interest in.

    Officialdom is scared and is adding to the framework to attempt to control challengers to their authority. You may not due the time but you'll ride the ride is the buzzphrase of the day.

    (note how Aaron didn't do the time and in the end wanted off the ride the DOJ put him on)