Slashdot Mirror
The Network Is Hostile
An anonymous reader writes: Following this weekend's news that AT&T was as friendly with the NSA as we've suspected all along, cryptographer Matthew Green takes a step back to look at the broad lessons we've learned from the NSA leaks. He puts it simply: the network is hostile — and we really understand that now. "My take from the NSA revelations is that even though this point was 'obvious' and well-known, we've always felt it more intellectually than in our hearts. Even knowing the worst was possible, we still chose to believe that direct peering connections and leased lines from reputable providers like AT&T would make us safe. If nothing else, the NSA leaks have convincingly refuted this assumption." Green also points out that the limitations on law enforcement's data collection are technical in nature — their appetite for surveillance would be even larger if they had the means to manage it. "...it's significant that someday a large portion of the world's traffic will flow through networks controlled by governments that are, at least to some extent, hostile to the core values of Western democracies."
And some of those will be the governments of Western democracies. That's the truly maddening part.
"..someday a large portion of the world's traffic will flow through networks controlled by governments that are, at least to some extent, hostile to the core values of Western democracies.."
You mean, like the US government? /That was way too easy.
I'm not one of the many self-loathing Americans, but it's pretty irrefutable that the US government is "at least to some extent" hostile to the core Western, humanist values that are even laid out in its own Constitution.
-Styopa
Since when is AT&T a reputable provider?
AT&T is only reputable if you include negative reputation.
Sorry, but if the security apparatus of western democracies have lost the plot are are hostile to western democracies ... then it's time to pretty much realize that burning those assholes to the ground is the only real solution.
Nobody who works for these agents should be off limits. Doxxing, publishing their banking information.
It's time to hit back at the fascists before it's too late.
They can't pretend to be protecting our liberties by eroding them as bad as any totalitarian regime ever has.
This notion that these clowns should be able to bypass any and all security, due process, skip over our rights, and then lit to us about is complete garbage.
If the politicians won't rein them in, the people need to.
I've never understood why people thought that networks by themselves are safe. Networks are for sharing information with everyone. That is the entire point of networks - to share data. If you don't want to share data, don't be on a network. However you can try and implement security on a network, so that you only share with the nodes you want to, but that is difficult because that is not the model of interconnected networks. Of course people will now call me stupid, but that is because they lack historical context on WHY computer networks were invented in the first place. It was to share with everyone on the network, not hide or only share between certain nodes. Security is an afterthought and has been tacked on.
Some of the very worst offenders on surveillance are "democracies." It's time for us to stop living cliche to cliche and start realizing that things like personal freedom are correlated with, not caused by, particular structural forms of government. Ask a Jew in 1940 if they missed the Kaiser, who was a strong monarch, not a figurehead. Ask the average Russian pleb under Stalin if they'd not have given a small body part to be back under the Tsar.
Some of the worst governments in the modern age were ones built on being "for the people." Let's start judging governments based on what they do, not their structure.
Keep everybody safe. Encrypt everything!
If you are truly paranoid about security - or these days, at least overly aware of security issues - any network where you are not 100% in control of everything from source to destination and all spots in between should be considered as possibly hostile.
That said, how many people/groups/organizations/businesses really care about this?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
even though this point was 'obvious' and well-known, we've always felt it more intellectually than in our hearts. Even knowing the worst was possible, we still chose to believe that direct peering connections and leased lines from reputable providers like AT&T would make us safe
Who on earth believed that peering connections and leased lines would make them safe, and why does this man keep using the word "we"?
Did anyone here think peering agreements and AT&T would keep them safe?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The network itself isn't hostile, but the overlords controlling the net may be. But even worse are the darker corners of the web where your personal information is for sale in bulk for a dollar or less per person - including CC numbers.
Of course we need to keep an eye on the watchers on the net, but we should at the same time not exclude them completely but instead feed them with information that keeps them busy and hopefully have them make the net less risky for ordinary people. Feed them info about IS recruiters, CC fraudsters and Nigerian Scammers and they will at least put less effort on other tasks.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Anyone who ever thought the network wasn't hostile or believed Gilmore's "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" was a drooling idiot. Who do you think owns the telecoms infrastructure? Do you think those giant telecom businesses have the slightest interest in ignoring or defying a warrant or subpoena on your behalf? To whatever extent they do, it's only because it costs them money to comply.
There never was any freedom on the Internet. Every core router, ever backbone, every fiber link is owned by a business that is subject to legal requests for monitoring by the government of the territory where the hardware resides. Whatever brief window of "freedom" there existed was merely because legislation and regulatory bodies hadn't caught up with the new technology yet.
Hey ~PPH! Here he is!
Eediot! Everyone knows it's spelled notzy!
The Soviet vs. Imperial Russia example was to show that the general argument applies across all forms of government.
Most of those efforts are simply symptoms of our use of districts. A simple shift to a proportional representation system chosen across the entire polity would eliminate the most pernicious form which is gerrymandering.
In actuality, most of what is called efforts to disenfranchise are actually efforts to add integrity to the system such as voter ID laws. The idea that you should be allowed to wield any political power without being positively identified as a citizen eligible to wield it is utterly insane, but par for the course for certain types of ideologues (don't know if that applies to you personally)
Funding is certainly not where we're failing. Many of the worst districts are funded with the same devil-may-care attitude toward how much we're spending that is used on the military at the national level. The problem is that our educational system is structurally flawed in ways that are politically impossible to fix. It's a problem of culture and political will to address the culture.
It also doesn't help the situation that politicians know that the majority of voters are low-information voters. Point #1 greatly exacerbates that. The easiest way for politicians to destroy the influence of the more informed voters is to drown them in a sea of low-information voters who are the sort of people that are congenitally more interested in their own immediate creature needs than the public weal.
Like it or not, most low information voters are not that way because there's an informed citizen waiting for an excuse to burst forth from them. They are simple people who have simple needs and expectations. A lot of them are even smart people. Some of the dumbest arguments I've had on politics were with badly informed people with high IQs.
Expanding to a more democratic system provides a great deal of cover for the political class because democracy feels like we have power, feels like "we chose this." If we had a monarchy like Imperial Germany, the King would have feared a violent revolution over some of the scandals that have come out in the last 20 years because the public couldn't just say "we'll vote the King out." Consequently, I think a less democratic system would have likely chosen a more moderate and accountable course of action because the lack of an illusion of control would have channeled the public outrage directly at them.
"...it's significant that today a large portion of the world's traffic flows through networks controlled by governments that are, at least to some extent, hostile to the core values of Western democracies."
We call that hostile government the United States of America.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Slashdot censors "Hollerith?"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Ceausescu would blush with envy at what the NSA is capable of (and apparently doing).
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
ever read Ready, Player One?
No it's not, see?
"More like the NOTwork!" [posts-up for a high-five that will never come]
Some of us have been pointing this out since... well, at least since someone decided it would be a good idea to let sites you have no control over run code in your web browser.
If you care about security, every site on the network other than yours should be considered hostile. If you let the hipsters convince you that the network is a happy, fluffy land full of unicorns and bunnies, you deserve whatever you get.
I think what you need to understand is that some of the "core values of Western democracies" are unintentionally totalitarian and fascist in nature. People vote for politicians and policies that they think are good (save lives, help the poor, protect children, bring about world peace, increase equality, decrease racism, ...) but don't understand the ramifications of their choices, and usually those choices involve using government force and violations of individual liberties and civils rights against someone. After enough such votes, eventually, everybody is subject to such force and society has effectively turned totalitarian. The problem is worsened by the fact that the fraction of the population imposing their will often isn't even a majority; the "majority" of many votes in the us is less than 1/4 of the population, and under European parliamentary systems, it is often even smaller. One proposed answer to this is to leave government mostly to experts (Plato's "philosopher-king" and a hallmark of today's progressivism), but that doesn't work either, because those experts end up fallible and corrupt themselves.
This isn't an intrinsic fault of "democracies", it's just a fault of the kind of democracies we have, Western democracies, democracies that tend towards majoritarianism and place more and more power in the hands of government. There are many other possible forms of democracy (i.e., self-governance by the people, as opposed to, say, monarchy or theocracy) besides majoritarianism.
There are malicious creatures, people, and governments everywhere. Accidents happen. Life itself is a struggle for survival. Why would networks be any different?
You guessed wrong about the shootings in Norway and now you're rolling the dice again, don't you learn?
Ironically, ISIS is playing you like a fiddle:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08...
What part of "information wants to be free" isn't clear?