Web Security Plan Won't Invade Privacy

White House: Web Security Plan Won't Invade Privacy

Reuters
Friday, December 20, 2002; 7:06 PM



By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Efforts to bolster Internet security will not lead to increased government scrutiny of individuals' online habits, the White House and industry sources said on Friday.

As it finalizes sweeping guidelines that aim to increase cybersecurity, the Bush administration said individual privacy would not be affected by efforts to prevent cyberattacks.

"The administration is not considering a proposal to monitor what individuals do on the Internet," a spokesman for the transition to the newly created Department of Homeland Security said.

High-tech companies, meanwhile, said they would resist government efforts to get involved in the day-to-day operation of the global computer network.

In a set of preliminary guidelines released in September, the White House said high-tech companies that keep an eye on the Internet should combine their efforts and work with the government to better defend against computer viruses, worms and other cyberattacks.

The New York Times in its Friday edition reported the White House is planning a bigger government role in the proposed center that could possibly lead to surveillance of individual users.

But high-tech sources who had been briefed on the updated plans said they were not aware of any such change, and White House Cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke assured high-tech firms the government only wanted them to set up an "early warning system" to keep an eye on the health of the Internet

"This early warning system would, if companies chose to create it, involve only highly aggregated information on the overall health of the Internet," Clarke said in a letter.

CAN'T READ E-MAILS

Internet infrastructure firms such as AT&T Corp. and VeriSign Inc. already maintain such "network operating centers" on their own, keeping an eye out for unusual spikes in traffic that may signal a "denial of service" attack similar to ones that have temporarily disabled high-profile sites like Yahoo! and the White House.

But such centers cannot open e-mails or otherwise monitor content, industry experts say; the system could not be used to ferret out members of al Qaeda or other militant groups.

The head of a high-tech trade group said government involvement in this system is not needed as these companies are already in constant communication with each other.

"They already do it just fine, they don't need government help," said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America. "There are so many people monitoring the system that nothing's going to fall through the cracks."

The system may be more like highway traffic cameras that watch for accidents rather than individual police stops, but government involvement is still worrisome, said Stewart Baker, former general counsel to the National Security Agency, who now represents Internet service providers.

"Even if they're only able to do the sorts of searches you'd expect a network operating center to be able to do, it still raises these questions," Baker said. "When do they leave the room?"

Internet service providers -- which do handle individual communications -- are not likely to cooperate with government surveillance efforts unless commanded by court order, an industry source said, because it would discourage people from using the Internet.

A spokesman for America Online said the company had not seen the revised guidelines and thus could not comment, but said the popular access provider would work to balance privacy with security.

Privacy experts said they were not familiar with the revised version of the security plan, which is expected to be released early next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19316-2002Dec20.html

 

I don't believe it, but: The way I see it, we have a couple of things going for us.
First of all, for a person such as I or you, or Paul, or Joe Blo, the sheer numbers play in our favor. Unless we start sending a lot of keywords all over the net, they are not going to have time to eavsdrop on everyone.
Second, not many people in the Federal Government can do anything right anymore. By the time the gargantuan mess of a security agency gets put together, it is going to be such a beaurocratic nightmare, that no one in the agency is going to be able to find the internet.
When history is written sometime in the future, I fear the Department of Homeland Security is going to be viewed in a rather negative light.
I can almost feel my privacy and individual rights slipping away.

 

Well said.

 

"Unless we start sending a lot of keywords all over the net, they are not going to have time to eavsdrop on everyone."

Tell me the purpose of this and how all that works?

 

Echelon signature for PGP:

http://www.xent.com/sept99/0562.html

Echelon signature for email:

http://www.bigwig.net/softwaredesign/ (scroll to the bottom of that page).

Lots and lots of keywords.

 

Yes Ghost I know all about those What do you do with them and why?

 

First, let me say that I believe the so-called "official" list of keywords is poppycok. (Had to spell that last word wrong as the last part of the word was filtered and got starred out!) With that said, I believe root is correct in saying that keywords are the triggers of Echelon and some of those on that "official" list certainly are probably part of the real official list.

Primrose, the idea behind flooding the Internet with these keywords is to throw a massive snooping program into overdrive and burn its engine up so to speak.

It's part of an old tradition used during the civil rights struggle, various wars, etc. It is used the world over to voice disapproval with the official policies of the government(s) ---
It's called CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

John
Luv2BSecure

 

Not hardly a good comparision with Civil Actions you just mention as you said it is poppycrock because no one is listening... not even a mouse. It is like that Bear in the woods thing

Happy Holidays John. The Wilders filter will get one more action than those keywords

 

I signed on for just a minute before I hit the sack....Looong day.

Clarification: I didn't say it's poppycrock because nobody's listening. Clearly they are. I said the so-called "official" list of keyword triggers that we see float around is not the REAL list of keywords. That's my opinion anyway. I mean, really, "Hillary" "Vince Foster" ? I can't buy into that - but many of the others - yes, I think they're legitimate triggers for Echelon.

But as far as the actual existence of Echelon and the high-tech Internet, telephone, etc. surveillance? I believe it without question. It's been going on for years and years and is now being turned on American citizens. I believe that with all I have.

Excellent Wall Street Journal[/] story from a couple years back is to be found here:
http://cryptome.org/nsa-snoops.htm

The above was before 9-11 and for many, it stifled the criticism. Scary how many are willing to give in to an all-powerful government to provide them with "security" in exchange for freedom.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echres.html
Excellent resource page with a lot of links to other pages.

Hey, to me, here's proof: When EPIC and others have filed FOIA requests they are not told it doesn't exist, they get back black copies - meaning they provided the information, it just happens to be all blacked out for reasons of "national security." They talk out of both sides of their mouth. This is an American/Canadian/European project that is Orwell personified.

Just wanted to clear that up - I believe it. I just don't believe in that particular list.

Happiest of holidays to you as well, Primrose. Take good care and I hope 2003 is good to you.

John
Luv2BSecure

 

Then I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how and when they do "send this list out over the internet."
I think it is meant to overload something and in that case does that something know you are sending it out and who you are?

 

Primrose - You got a little off-the-track there (and I didn't help matters any! )

Look at what root said to start with - "Unless we start sending a lot of keywords all over the net, they are not going to have time to eavsdrop on everyone." (Italics mine).

He wasn't advocating doing so, he was simply pointing out that in the normal course of events, a persons' emails wouldn't contain anything that Echelon (or anything else) would prick up its' ears over.

I know (?) you're not insulting our intelligence by claiming to not believe that Echelon exists, that it's in use and that it has to 'key' on something - you're just being deliberately obtuse.

I provided those links above merely as an example of what the "Key" words could be.

The theory behind the use of such a sig in your emails is merely to give the finger to Echelon if it happens to be in your neighborhood.

Of course (if your email's being monitored) they know that you're using it and who you are - that's the whole point! Doesn't the term "Have a nice day" ring any bells for you here? In the context of saying one thing while meaning something entirely different?

The use of an "Echelon" signature is never going to "overload" anything -
(a) not enough people will ever use it to make a difference and
(b) it'd only take a second to identify it for what it was and filter it out anyway.

It's a gesture.

Hope this clears that up for you.

 

Thanks Ghost. All the time I was an Old Crow I never ran into that use..but gesture I do understand...and Intelligence.
I find nothing insulting in either.