Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Proposes Centralized Internet Surveillance

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the one-NOC-to-rule-them-all dept.

Privacy 746

Mr.Intel writes "The Times is reporting that President Bush is 'planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users.' The recommendation is part of a report entitled 'The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'. It is due to be published early next year."

cancel ×

746 comments

But... (1, Funny)

unterderbrucke (628741) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928964)

AOL already does this!

Re:But... (3, Funny)

blowdart (31458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929060)

No no, AOL centralises all the spam on the internet.

great news!! (1, Funny)

oZZoZZ (627043) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928965)

That I live in Canada!

Re:great news!! (3, Offtopic)

boaworm (180781) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928987)

As far as I know, Canada is also a part of the "Internet", and the article states that the whole of internet will be monitored. Wonder how they gonna persuade Irak and Iran to send such data to Bush though ;-)

And.. it is going to be a huge amount of data... realtime monitoring of all peer2peer traffic etc.. Sounds like they need a big budget =)

Re:great news!! (2, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929124)

Wonder how they gonna persuade Irak and Iran to send such data to Bush though ;-)

Maybe by bombing the shit out of them?

Re:great news!! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929003)

This is yet another example of Prezdint Dubyuh interfering in matters which he is not bright enough to understand. But then again, most government US institutions work that way. The real difference here is that they don't own cyberspace. You may be able to control American users in cyberspace, but the internet is international waters. He couldn't "secure" it if he wanted to (which obviously, he does). Can't wait till the next presidential election.

Re:great news!! (3, Interesting)

InadequateCamel (515839) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929071)

Even if only American sites are to be included, I think you will find that a substantial number of the webpages you visit happen to be American.

At the very least you will have to go look for new websites to browse, but for some people who use American websites for research purposes or some other practical means may be concerned by this.

I wonder if soon we will have to register and "clear Customs" before "crossing the border" into American cyberspace. We Canadians might one day find that accessing the virtual US gets harder than physically crossing the border!

Re:great news!! (2, Funny)

FilthPig (88644) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929082)

That I live in Canada!

Mmm-hmm... well, thankfully if these go through you won't be able to keep your schemes against us a secret, and we'll topple your regime in no time. That'll teach you that we know better than anybody what's appropriate and allowable in the world.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0, Insightful)

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (621411) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928966)

Even we didn't spy on our citizens this much!

Big Brother, coming to an internet near you... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4928968)

Why watch "Big Brother" the stupid show on tv when you can have it as part of your internet experience!!

America.... (2, Funny)

am_human2 (635209) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928969)

Communism:
IN SOVIET RUSSIA the Internet reads YOU for information.

Capitalism:
IN US of AMERICA the YOU re....

Never mind....

Re:America.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4928986)

yep, that made about as much sense as I thought it would.

all right, thats the last straw (-1, Troll)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928971)

time for a fucking revolution.

My take (5, Funny)

Queelix (635663) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928973)

I think this sounds like a great idea. Sincerely, Satan

Re:My take (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929042)

Me Too, Bill

Re:My take (0, Troll)

haedesch (247543) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929111)

anything to please you, master...
Sincerely, W

It's about time (0, Insightful)

Rat Tank (612088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928974)

The international and unregulated nature of the internet has, up until now, enabled communication that was completely untappable. This should do more for solving that problem, at least for law enforcement authorities (no hackers tracking my traffic please ;) ), giving criminals and terrorists alike nowhere to hide. I for one welcome these measures, as I don't wish to see another 9/11, and presumably neither do the rest of you.

Re:It's about time (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4928983)

I don't wish to see another 9/11

Why? Did something happen on 9th November?

Re:It's about time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4928994)

Private communication is a basic human rigth.

Re:It's about time (3, Interesting)

Oddly_Drac (625066) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928995)

"The international and unregulated nature of the internet has, up until now, enabled communication that was completely untappable. This should do more for solving that problem, at least for law enforcement authorities (no hackers tracking my traffic please ;) ), giving criminals and terrorists alike nowhere to hide. I for one welcome these measures, as I don't wish to see another 9/11, and presumably neither do the rest of you."

You have to be trolling. Oh well, in answer to that...
1) Centralised data means a single point of attack.
2) Trust your government, do you? Even after Iran Contra?
3) I don't notice anyone saying that they've gotten any useful intelligence from emails _before_ a crime has been committed.

OD

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929094)

1) Centralised data means a single point of attack.

Sorry, that doesn't hold water. A broken sniffer doesn't mean your network goes down.

Re:It's about time (2, Insightful)

drokus (116100) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929016)

Giving up freedom for a false sense of security is never a good idea.

Re:It's about time (5, Interesting)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929092)

Benjamin Franklin actually said it best:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."

Kierthos

Re:It's about time (0, Flamebait)

Rat Tank (612088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929107)

Will you still be saying that when America is once again awash with blood from another terrorist attack? Innocent American lives are worth more than your "freedom" to download kiddiepr0n without the feds knowing about it. People like you make me sick, with your twisted selfish priorities.

Re:It's about time (3, Insightful)

m4ik (576357) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929020)

You Americanos scare me sometimes. No, I don't want to see more terror attacks, but isn't this the kind of stuff you hated the Soviet states for? Spying on people can be used easiely for controling people and because it can, it will.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929118)

Who is George Bush? Ah yeah, I know, he is the president of China..that explains everything, no democracy there, centralized filtering/spying, and so on..

Re:It's about time (1)

cottonmouth (543865) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929021)

If you don't want to see another 9-11 perhaps you should ask your government why they are trying to cover up the fact that they could have caught the terrorists that committed this attack. Instead, they told the FBI agents investigating these guys, "let sleeping dogs lie". The rest is history. How outrageous was it to put Henry Kissinger in charge of "finding the truth"? Who is fooling who?

This message brought to you by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929031)

...the American Goverment,

The FBI

The CIA

The NSA

and all the other folks in the black helicopters keeping an eye on everything you DO. If you want us to or not.

Don't worry, we'll find out one way or another.

Re:It's about time (2, Insightful)

Wtcher (312395) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929034)

Perhaps the problem is less that people have lost several illusions or blankets of privacy and more that people are worried that a system of this nature could one day become abused or broken into.

I'm still fond of being reasonably anonymous and having the ability to conduct conversations in privacy though; imagine the uproar if people were told that they wouldn't be allowed to privately converse with friends over the phone or even in their own homes! At the very least, I feel that citizens should not be trackable except without due cause; sort of like getting a warrant, I suppose.

Hey George Bush! I accidentally ran over your pet cow yesterday. Personally, I hope the system gets filled with garbage. ^_~

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929098)

A place which will always remain secure place to
talk is Secure Internet Live Conferencing (a
href="http://silcnet.org">SILC) network.

Re:It's about time (5, Insightful)

vaguelyamused (535377) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929036)

These measures will in no way prevent another 9/11. Anyone serious and able to perform terrorist operation like 9/11 is not going to allow themselves to fall prey to blanket security restrictions such as this. Sleeper cell attacks such as 9/11 are not going to be stopped by your government scanning your e-mail and internet connection for words like "bomb" and "explosion". A properly planted cell will already have its goal established upon arrival to the US and will be triggered by a very inane signal that would be designed not to arouse suspicion.

What monitoring everyone all the time does is make everyone a suspect, thus in the eyes of law enforcement a criminal. Everyone's Internet usage is automatically monitored regardless of probable cause. Blanket surveillance regardless of guilt or cause is the foundation for the police state that Bush, Ashcroft, Poindexter, etal. wish so desperately to establish.

Difference with a phone ? (5, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929052)

How is Internet or any TCP comnmunication different than a real phone, or a letter ? As far as I can tell to watch over and tap your phone or letter authroity need a special judge writing. So why suddenly Internet which is only another form of communication , is soooo different that it need to be surveyed in real time ?

Second, any terrorist communicating message not encrypted over, hidden in picture or other data, or using a code word system is already a dead or arrested terrorist. How THIS system is supposed to rpeevtn another 9/11 when the FAILURE of theuautorithy was to INTERPRET THE DATA and NOT get the data ?

Call me a paranoid , but if you control the communication between people, you control the people too. It looks more like population control than terrorism fight.

Re:It's about time (1)

hatoko (635669) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929084)

erm, do u really believe that this would stop a terrorist? if u want to hide something, u hide it inside a pic or any other kind of file and thats it, they cant control it. there's ways to hide a text into another text and keep it clear too... they simply can stop a terrorist if the terrorist is serious about it... or the terrorist can send a letter by snailmail and it should not be intercepted (snailmail is still private there or they took that out of their citizens already?). this is just against everyone civil liberties.

what about the packets that go thru a usa server from the country A to the country B? is that logged too?

The thing is... (3, Insightful)

fsharp (617264) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929104)

Before I get too outraged by this whole thing, how does anyone suppose that the feds will be able to handle the amount of data collected? It seems that there were pieces of the 9/11 puzzle available to the feds prior to the incident, but no one could put them together.

Honestly, does anyone believe that the Feds could actually get through all the data? Sure natural language processing could analyze some of the data, but all of it? And really, do we believe that terrorists really so stupid as to put "Attack this Thusday at Place X--Bring Explosives" in their subject lines?

Apart from the practical nature of the collecting and analyzing data, are we just a little too nutty about wanting to feel safe? Homeland Security, watching our neighbors, analyzing what sites I surf, will that really keep terrorists out of the US? Is this all just a bunch of fear motivated policies that will keep us placated while we go about our day, at least until the next event.

Sure we need to be prepared and all, but at least lets demand a little intelligence and thought.

My little rant.

First thought (2)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928981)

Actually, my first thought was *shrug*. My second thought is "Go Freenet!".

Bummer. (3, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928982)

Well.. I'd write something critical of the plan here ... BUT THEY MIGHT BE LISTENING!

Is this not espionage? (5, Interesting)

fatgav (555629) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928984)

I am not a US citizen. If they are monitoring everything on the net, how would they know that I am British and not American. If they do build up a profile of foreign populations, does this classify as espionage?

In my case, Blair sucks up to bush anyway, but what if I was chinese or something?

Re:Is this not espionage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929033)

never heard of Echelon?

Luckily (1)

blackwizard (62282) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928990)

"Internet service providers" and "centralized" are mutually exclusive...

Big Brother Coming... (1)

coldfish (132450) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928991)

It's sad to see what is happening to the once "land of freedom". I am worried also about the consequences. The problem is that the effect of this anti-democratic evolution of the US will spread through all the world too...

good god (1)

TitleSeventeen (610091) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928992)

how far is this war on terror going to go? i want to be safe to, but thease legnths are just nuts! I know he woulden't want to be spyed on. whats next, telescreens, like in orwell's "1984" I hope that i am dead in the ground when this happiens!

Re:good god (1, Redundant)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929005)

whats next, telescreens, like in orwell's "1984" I hope that i am dead in the ground when this happiens!
We can arrange that.

Yours sincerely,

Big Brother

re:good god (1)

dcphoenix (528517) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929122)

How far is actually a great question to ask. In previous engagments, there were tangible answers to that bceause of obvious goals that could be clearly achieved ( such as Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait ). That gave us an answer as to how far it should go. However, with this "war" things are more spread out, subtle and the "enemy" could be living among us. This is the perfect excuse for big brother to drag out this war and to tighten up it's grip.

I gotta say... (1, Funny)

Tar-Palantir (590548) | more than 11 years ago | (#4928996)

This is double-plus-ungood.

This has come up before, from Clinton (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929002)

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

MONDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco:I will not suck any more dick ever again.
MONDAY EVENING
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

TUESDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
TUESDAY EVENING
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

WEDNESDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
WEDNESDAY EVENING
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

THURSDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
THURSDAY EVENING
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

FRIDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
FRIDAY EVENING
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

SATURDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
SATURDAY EVENING
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

SUNDAY MORNING
Cmdr Taco: Today is the Lord's day!
SUNDAY AFTERNOON
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*


Here we go again. (1, Funny)

Mostly Harmless (48610) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929006)

This is from the same person that asked, "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" (Dubya, January 29, 2000, Slate.) Be afraid. Be very afraid.

States are asserting their rights (5, Informative)

bugpit (588944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929007)

This Wired article [wired.com] notes that states are rapidly passing legislation that locally prohibits much of the federal gov't activities outlined in the Patriot Act.

Re:States are asserting their rights (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929077)

The states can't do anything about it. According to the US Constitution , Federal law always trumps state law. A direct quote from article VI of the constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. " The civil war already settled the matter of federal supremecy over states rights.

Re:States are asserting their rights (1, Insightful)

liposuction (176349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929131)

Good. It's scary when a government can't trust it's own people.

There's something wrong with all of this.

Re:States are asserting their rights (1)

InadequateCamel (515839) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929137)

I am a little confused by the wording being used in these discussions.

My impression is that they are passing resolutions to oppose the Patriot Act, which is a whole different ballgame than legislation that prohibits the Patriot Act.

These cities are agreeing to oppose it based on what they feel is their right, but I don't think that municipalities have the power to overturn federal action that quickly. But I am not a lawyer...

I Applaud This Move (0)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929008)

With our War On Terrorism successfully being prosecuted, this is another good step the Bush Administration is taking to ensure that us Americans will be safe.

I think the government can do a better job in securing and monitoring the Internet, it's better than leaving it to the megacorps to do that.

God, I love this country.

Re:I Applaud This Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929038)

It sounds to me like you love the fact that you have to do nothing but sit around and watch TV.

Jesus, learn how to think for yourself you damn fool!

Re:I Applaud This Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929076)

Sarcasm is wasted on you.

The USA Government are world terrorists!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929009)

I think it's time to use that freedom we have to "bare arms" and stock up on anything you can find. It seems to me that the same thing is happening here that happened in England. And history shows us if we fight for what we believe in we will prevail.

Maybe the recent sniper attacks were helping fight the citizens war on government terrorism.

Internet Proposes Centralized U.S. Surveillance (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929010)

REUTERS -- The Internet is planning to propose requiring the Bush administration to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the White House, and, potentially, surveillance of its cabinet.

The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure the Bush Administration," set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the theft of the 2000 election.

-- Hey, turnabout's fair play!

Guess who's next? (5, Interesting)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929011)

The RIAA, and MPAA will want to "watch" the internet through this network and nab any Tom dick and Harry who pass music files.

Of course, independant music won't be distinguished in order to make thier stats look better "43 trillion music files were traded last year, and our revenue only increased by 2 billion. If we make each of those users pay every time they trade a file, we could make gazillion's (to quote jk) more. Of course we'd give 1 million to the governemnt for letting us use their network for our own commercial gain.

Folks, the internet is dying because it became the true meaning of free speech, communication and information. Corporations are slowly killing the net, which requires Goverments to get their hands in on regulating things.

I don't use the net as much as I did because of all the popups, spam and corporate cluelessness.

If anyone knows of a protected Sub-net (encrypted, anonymous use) please let me know to restore my faith.

Thank you.

Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering

Re:Guess who's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929066)

"If anyone knows of a protected Sub-net (encrypted, anonymous use) please let me know to restore my faith."

You might want to investigate Freenet.

It is really quite simple (3, Funny)

jmcwork (564008) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929012)

Just read alt.terrorists.currentplans and that will keep you up to date. Do NOT get it confused with alt.binaries.terrorists.erotica or you will be really sorry.

Who in the hell needs a constitution anymore!!! (1)

idris33 (622727) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929015)

It figures. Our government has been trying for years to figure out ways to undermine our constitution and the protections afforded to citizens in it. You're reading the warning here... If you want freedom, a right to privacy, and laws protecting you from an increasing tyrannical government, move to Europe.

At who's behest? (2)

Epeeist (2682) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929049)

If your government is trying to undermine your constitution then is it doing it on its own behalf, or the corporations that own it?

Make the Internet Open Source! (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929019)

Oh wait, wasn't it once upon a time? Never mind ...

About time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929022)

..finally someone does something that will result in widespread use of IPSEC. About darn time.

Thanks bush :)

The whole Internet? (3, Interesting)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929023)

This is looking at the whole Internet.

Well, the Volkssicherheitsministerium will have a hard time to peek into, e.g. European research networks. It's unlikely that they would export flow data (or something else) to the U.S.

hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929024)

I think the question at this point is no longer whether Dubya ought to be killed, but how.

I would recommend taking a private plane and removing the transponder, filling it with explosives or possibly home-made chemical weapons, and flying into the White House at about 3AM when you know Bush is asleep in there.

Maybe try to do it on a night when Bush's butt-buddies Ashcroft and Cheney are sleeping over.

Note to government agents reading this post: fuck you.

Oversight Comittee (1)

csritchie (631120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929025)

Yeah, this sounds like a perfect way for congress to write off its time surfing porn as in "the interest of National Security."

Redundant? (2)

ldspartan (14035) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929026)

Isn't this already happening by virtue of Echelon [abovetopsecret.com] ?

--
Phil

I can see it now (2, Funny)

blowdart (31458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929029)

"Mr President, there seems to be a large flow in identical messages"

"Ah, must be terrorist code. Let me see it"

It says "Increase your penis size."

or

"Mr President, thousands of americans are visiting this web site every day, www.goatse.cx".....

Re:I can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929067)

Well, we can only hope mr. Bush will nuke whatever country the http://www.goatse.cx [goatse.cx] servers are in.

The Internet: The Last Anarchy (1)

madgeorge (632496) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929032)

What, Carnivore [epic.org] isn't good enough?

Ummmm No... (0, Insightful)

AlricTheMad (463234) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929035)

I had thought that it was pretty clear. TERRORIST DON'T USE E-MAIL

The internet is so open and not private that it doesn't make a good form of secure communication with out a lot of effort. And it should be pretty obvious when those methods are used since encrypted traffic looks, well, encrypted (DUH).

How can the ability to track every persons usage of the interent help with finding and fighting terrorism. How about convincing people that anger, killing and destruction may get attention but they don't solve problems.

Alric The Mad

AKA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929041)

The National Cyberspace Security Strategy, also known as "The National Cyberspace SS".

1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929047)

This is like, so 1984. Crazy.

The real reason, is far less "orwellian" (2)

curtisk (191737) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929048)

Damn, if the Bush Administration want to look at porn, why don't they just do it themselves? Thats most of what they will see in the internet traffic...
Instead they will view it via this ruse of "monitoring the internet".....uhhhh huh, sure you are *wink*
Laura and Barbara Bush: "What are you boys doing in there?"
The 2 Georges: "Maintaining national security! Don't come in!!!!"

Damned if you do... (3, Interesting)

Effugas (2378) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929057)

It's kind of sad.

Bush administration makes alot of noise that they're doing something serious to deal with Internet Security, and *gasp* all they're up to is just cajoling private industry to get their act together. The slackers!

A half year goes by, and again, more noise. This time they're doing something real -- central monitoring, accountability, mandatory support for legal interception, and *gasp* all they're up to is stealing control of private property to further their own nefarious goals. The nazis!

I'm not sure what people want. I'm not sure what I want. The only thing I am sure of is we'll not be happy with whatever we get.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Damned if you do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929074)

Gee, you're a stupid idiot.

Re:Damned if you do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929135)

I want them out. Out. Completely. Not slacking, not over-zealous...nothing. It's not their concern.

And you think your privacy is at stake here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929058)

People...Come on...listen to yourselves babbling on about "Freedom of Speech"...etc....wasn't it Scott McNealy who mentioned something about Privacy already being dead in regards to protection of it(privacy) online? Seriously, these Surveillance measures are to rake out the people who seriously realize that freedom of communication to them means they can covertly plot, plan, organize, share kiddie pron, whatever...THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF WHAT WE WANT SO BADLY...FREEDOM....Thus, our self-instated Police Force (whom I happen to really respect) realize that the only method for combatting these freaks of nature is to "monitor" all of us as a whole...Human Rationalization is still alive and well enough to act as our "checks and balances" system in order to not allow us to slip into an Orwellian state of being, so fear not...THIS IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD...WE NEED THIS....Wake up...It's not the government we must fear...it's that nice little old lady down the street...or the young man who bags groceries at the grocery store......you get where I am going with this?...be aware, be awake...

Re:And you think your privacy is at stake here? (1)

DirkDaring (91233) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929073)

I fear nutcases on /. who post messages in bold with caps more than I fear these surveillance measures.

One step closer... (1)

elixx (242653) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929059)

It seems to me like they are simply preparing for the IAO; They already had it planned, they're just breaking it down for some reason. Probably to make people think they're different tasks with different goals.

1950's communism everywhere now a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929061)

Time for Bush to be kicked out of office! In the 1950's everyone was suspected of being a communist. Now it's everyone is a terrorist or at least your neighbor on the block might be one.

He has now shifted the cost of Homeland Defense onto the ISP and is forcing them to be the wirtetap. They will have to write and maintain the software, the people and then be the "judge and jury" as to whether you are violating some Bush policy he doesn't like you to be doing. There will be no trial anymore as "innocent until proven guilty". You'll be guilty by being associated with and labeled a terrorist. Therfore, the new e-econmy will be e-police state. Thus, all the data from these ISP's will be fed into the central DBMS machine that Homeland Security will build. The only way around this is to get a modem and do direct dialing to the computer you want to communicate with and thus bypass the internet. I'm sure this is what the terrorists do now so that they can't be monitored that easily unless the government gets a wiretap from the courts.

What in the world is the US changing into? It is very scary as to the basic rights every American has is being trounced on by an egotistical maniac prez who wants to write and go down in history.

Only two more years of this. This is to long to wait.

I just hope they arent able to (2, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929062)

match all the ac postings to the users real ID (shudder)...

If there is surveillance, it isn't secure (1)

yalla (102708) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929068)

So the name 'The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace' is a contractiction.

Just my 2 eurocents,
Alex.

stop raping the memory of the 9/11 victims (5, Insightful)

haedesch (247543) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929079)

It's really disgusting how the US governement is abusing the 9/11 attacks to take away the rights of the US citizens. The victims must be spinning in their graves.

Enryption... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929085)

They can watch where we go, but not the data itself. It's just like work, I use VNC over an ssh tunnel back to my home machine. If this does go through (which I hope to god it does not) there are methods of subversion that would render their monitoring nearly useless (and a nice waste of taxpayers money)

I wonder what will be the consequences... (2)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929086)

Something like this might be just what's needed to make non-geeks use things like Freenet and encryption. Or at least it'd be a good reason for it. Of course then Freenet might become illegal, with the resulting developments in steganography...

I don't think that anything good will come out of this. Hopefully people will wake up before we all end living in a totalitarian state.

GO SNIPER GO!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929087)

Lets take these sick fucks out of office before we all end up in jail for chatting on AIM!

blunderbus (1)

DonFinch (584056) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929089)

as massive and blundering as our gov't is do you really think they could pull it off? I mean the INS sent visa extentions to two of the hijackers post-mortem. Plus this raises serious free speech issues. This is comperable to a 24 hour tap on all phones in the WORLD with no warrant. I doubt the aclu or the EFF will let this get by without a fight. If some candidates ran under a privacy and civil liberties platform, I would think these days, they could get elected, however with education so slashed and backward, the majority of the US is to apathetic or stupid to understand the issues at hand, they wont even listen. As long as they have "Must see TV" and some deep fat fried greasy something to shove down their gullet, they will do/belive whatever you tell them.

National? (2, Interesting)

Gorthaur (155589) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929096)

National... broad monitoring of the Internet... National... broad monitoring of the Internet...

Is this yet another example of American Imperialism?

In my country (somewhere in Europe, thanks to my forefathers) we have quite extensive privacy legislature; could I sue the US if they would gather data on me and if they refuse to remove it on my request?

Sombody send Bush an AOL CD-ROM.

Bass-Ackward Approach (2, Informative)

HelbaSluice (634789) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929097)

So instead of securing vulnerable and critical systems, we're going to monitor THE WHOLE INTERNET. Okay... That sounds like a plan...

Setting the civil liberties nightmare aside for a second, and even assuming the terrorist threat to the computing infrastructure is real and justifies this level of response, this approach is just bad policy. This is yet another expression of our Cowboy President's locker-room-towel-snapping "let's go get them bad dudes" mentality. Any IT security professional will tell you this aproach is precisely backwards.

Icon (2)

spakka (606417) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929102)

Why do we have a PlayStation2 controller for the 'Your Rights Online' icon? Bring back the harmonica guy! [slashdot.org]

Can Liberty Survive? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929112)

Do these people not understand that the Internet was purposefully designed to be de-centralized and redundant to avoid the loss of the entire network by failure in any given node? Funnelling all Internet connections through a centralized NOC makes systemwide failure possible. How does that increase "Homeland Security"? If you were a terrorist, cyber or otherwise, where would you focus your attention? Methinks that the *real* intention is for increased *cyber snooping*. Note the quote:

"Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said yesterday that the proposal, which includes a national network operations center, was still in flux. She said the proposed methods did not necessarily require gathering data that would allow monitoring at an individual user level." [Emphasis added]

Just another chip off the mantle of Lady Liberty.

Strange idea. (2)

alsta (9424) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929114)

I would believe that most companies can handle their own surveillance needs and if need be, contact authorities.

It seems expensive, and probably not very efficient in stopping terror attacks. Perhaps the Federal government should consider issuing guidelines, just as they do for roads and railroads as to how a national ISPs network should be built for proper de-centralization so that a lights-out situation doesn't affect the whole nation?

The first day on the job... (1)

C R Johnson (141) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929115)

Hi Bob. Welcome to the department of internet survaillence. Um, lets see, your assignment, um... I have it here somewhere... Oh yes, theres something called USENET. Your job is to keep an eye on USENET and let us know what is going on. OK, heres your cube.

Riggghhhhtttt (4, Insightful)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929119)

I run a small website for news and discusion. Last month I had 15,000 visits and served up over 500,000 pages.

How many visits does slashdot get? How many page views? Ebay? MSNBC? Weatherchannel? Tom's Hardware?

Does anyone here actually understand the magnitude of pages, sites, and information that they are proposing on watching and filtering?

The number is mind boggling.

We have folks comparing this to another step twords 1984. In readiong their comments, I wonder if they've even read the book?

All this "surveillance" of the web will accomplish is a useless oversized database with statistics that will take people years to get a grasp on. It'll be a case of "too much information" that won't be easily collated - and hence , pretty useless.

whichever weigh the WINd bullows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929120)

"Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) spoke this morning on C-SPAN about the Bush administration (and Republican side of the aisle in Congress) subversion of the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Accounting Reform Bill and (with ex-SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt) of the new Accounting Oversight Board by "starving" (badly underfunding) both the SEC and the Accounting Oversight Board. Even now that Donaldson has been nominated as the new SEC Chairman, Bill Webster is still the (lame duck) chairman of the Accounting Oversight Board and House Republicans have blocked any increase of funding for enforcement of our securities laws stating that they plan to pass a continuing resolution next month to merely maintain paltry pre-Sarbanes Bill funding levels. This cripples the securities and accounting fraud reforms which the public (myself included) had hoped for from our government. House Democrats (including Markey, Frank, and Dingle) have pushed consistently for increased funding and now have issued a formal report on the SEC Accounting Oversight Board Chairman Selection Process which reflects a deplorable negligence by the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans. Whether this negligence is "accidental" or part of a stealthy and intentional strategy to undermine all such reforms and to enable continuing fraud on the massive and highly damaging scale which has been preying on individual investors for at least the past three years, the chilling effect on our securities markets (especially the stock market) will continue and deepen. The President's promises to double SEC funding (quickly) have been broken. As Ed Markey mentioned, this is the first time a major securities investigation has been led by a state attorney general (Spitzer) without any high federal official visibly leading it instead. This clearly indicates to me the administration's unwillingness to take corporate scandals and restoration of investor confidence honestly and seriously enough to effectively reform this fraudulent accounting environment well enough to restore our securites markets to sufficient safety and honesty for my savings to find a home there. I cannot imagine investing my hard-earned savings in stocks of publicly-held corporations traded on the NYSE or NASD while this travesty of "reform" at the administrative/funding level continues. It was difficult enough for legislative reforms to be enacted by Congress (and the President signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Bill into law even though he now refuses to effectively implement it, eliminating it via negligence) only to see them blocked by an administration led by those who were themselves too much involved in alleged securities improprieties or fraud in the past. The fox is still guarding the henhouse where we've been asked to invest our own nest-eggs."

L0L [google.com] [google.com] 10 [trustworthycomputing.com] [trustworthycomputing.com] [ Reply to This [slashdot.org] ]

Does anyone have a Sniper Rifle I can borrow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929123)

I'll take care of these governemt swine, and return the gun when I'm done with it.

Also, if you ever want to shoot anyone, shoot them below the waiste, it will be less of a crime.

Also, if you ever shoot anyone, HIDE YOUR GUN. Even if you're in the RIGHT, they will take it from you, and you'll never get it back.

Too bad Terminator 3 is just a movie...

If they monitor me... (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929126)

...all they'll see is "hot transgender midget interracial teen hardcore asian bukkake!!" That's fine. Bush and Ashcroft are passing laws that are so ridiculous I can't really care any more. I only hope that there are some judges or politicians that have balls enough to take a stand on this. After all, that's what they're supposedly there for. Either I throw up my hands and laugh or I drive myself nuts watching these assholes.

Suck my cock, Bush.

The Transparent Society (5, Interesting)

DGolden (17848) | more than 11 years ago | (#4929127)

I STRONGLY suggest people read The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose between Privacy and Freedom? [kithrup.com] before drawing conclusions about surveillance technologies

Here's the publisher's blurb [perseuspublishing.com] :

The Transparent Society
Will Technology Force Us To Choose Between Privacy And Freedom?

In New York and Baltimore, police cameras scan public areas twenty-four hours a day. Huge commercial databases track you finances and sell that information to anyone willing to pay. Host sites on the World Wide Web record every page you view, and "smart" toll roads know where you drive. Every day, new technology nibbles at our privacy.Does that make you nervous?

David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability.The Transparent Society is a call for "reciprocal transparency." If police cameras watch us, shouldn't we be able to watch police stations? If credit bureaus sell our data, shouldn't we know who buys it?

Rather than cling to an illusion of anonymity-a historical anomaly, given our origins in close-knit villages-we should focus on guarding the most important forms of privacy and preserving mutual accountability. The biggest threat to our freedom, Brin warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people, now by too many.A society of glass houses may seem too fragile. Fearing technology-aided crime, governments seek to restrict online anonymity; fearing technology-aided tyranny, citizens call for encrypting all data.

Brins shows how, contrary to both approaches, windows offer us much better protection than walls; after all, the strongest deterrent against snooping has always been the fear of being spotted. Furthermore, Brin argues, Western culture now encourages eccentricity-we're programmed to rebel! That gives our society a natural protection against error and wrong-doing, like a body's immune system. But "social T-cells" need openness to spot trouble and get the word out.

The Transparent Society is full of such provocative and far-reaching analysis.The inescapable rush of technology is forcing us to make new choices about how we want to live. This daring book reminds us that an open society is more robust and flexible than one where secrecy reigns. In an era of gnat-sized cameras, universal databases, and clothes-penetrating radar, it will be more vital than ever for us to be able to watch the watchers. With reciprocal transparency we can detect dangers early and expose wrong-doers. We can gauge the credibility of pundits and politicians. We can share technological advances and news. But all of these benefits depend on the free, two-way flow of information.

In The Transparent Society, award-winning author David Brin details the startling argument that privacy, far from being a right, hampers the real foundation of a civil society: accountability. Using examples as disparate as security cameras in Scotland and Gay Pride events in Tucson, Brin shows that openness is far more liberating than secrecy and advocates for a society in which everyone (not just the government and not just the rich) could look over everyone else's shoulders.

The biggest threat to our society, he warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people not by too many.

David Brin has a Ph.D. in physics, but is best known for his science fiction. His books include the New York Times bestseller The Uplift War, Hugo Award-winner Startide Rising, and The Postman. He lives in Encinitas, California.

In Soviet America. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929130)

In Soviet America the Bush fucks you in the ass.

NY times articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4929133)

Does Slashdot get paid for linking to Times articles?
Sure looks like it when you see one article that says "we don't link to sites that require registration" but then all these stories with links to the Times.

At least be consistent in your hypocrisy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...