Bush Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet: DOES ANYBODY CARE?

[MrPopup]

But who cares right? After all...you guys have parties to go to....

Looks like the OC out there better start heading for the hills....



And the award for Greatest Ability to Bend Over and Take It Up The Pooper goes to: PEOPLE WHO SIT IDLY BY WHILE DEMOCRACY IS DESTROYED...IN OTHER WORDS, 99% OF AMERICA.

***********************

From the NY Times
Bush Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet

By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ

The Bush administration 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 proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," 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 Sept. 11 attacks.


The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security.

Such a proposal, which would be subject to Congressional and regulatory approval, would be a technical challenge because the Internet has thousands of independent service providers, from garage operations to giant corporations like American Online, AT&T, Microsoft and Worldcom.

The report does not detail specific operational requirements, locations for the centralized system or costs, people who were briefed on the document said.

While the proposal is meant to gauge the overall state of the worldwide network, some officials of Internet companies who have been briefed on the proposal say they worry that such a system could be used to cross the indistinct border between broad monitoring and wiretap.

Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who represents some of the nation's largest Internet providers, said, "Internet service providers are concerned about the privacy implications of this as well as liability," since providing access to live feeds of network activity could be interpreted as a wiretap or as the "pen register" and "trap and trace" systems used on phones without a judicial order.

Mr. Baker said the issue would need to be resolved before the proposal could move forward.

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.

But the need for a large-scale operations center is real, Ms. Olson said, because Internet service providers and security companies and other online companies only have a view of the part of the Internet that is under their control.

"We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture," she said. "When something is happening, we don't know it's happening until it's too late."

The government report was first released in draft form in September, and described the monitoring center, but it suggested it would likely be controlled by industry. The current draft sets the stage for the government to have a leadership role.

The new proposal is labeled in the report as an "early-warning center" that the board says is required to offer early detection of Internet-based attacks as well as defense against viruses and worms.

But Internet service providers argue that its data-monitoring functions could be used to track the activities of individuals using the network.

An official with a major data services company who has been briefed on several aspects of the government's plans said it was hard to see how such capabilities could be provided to government without the potential for real-time monitoring, even of individuals.

"Part of monitoring the Internet and doing real-time analysis is to be able to track incidents while they are occurring," the official said.

The official compared the system to Carnivore, the Internet wiretap system used by the F.B.I., saying: "Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely. But in fact, it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet."

One former federal Internet security official cautioned against drawing conclusions from the information that is available so far about the Securing Cyberspace report's conclusions.

Michael Vatis, the founding director of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Center and now the director of the Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth, said it was common for proposals to be cast in the worst possible light before anything is actually known about the technology that will be used or the legal framework within which it will function.

"You get a firestorm created before anybody knows what, concretely, is being proposed," Mr. Vatis said.

A technology that is deployed without the proper legal controls "could be used to violate privacy," he said, and should be considered carefully.

But at the other end of the spectrum of reaction, Mr. Vatis warned, "You end up without technology that could be very useful to combat terrorism, information warfare or some other harmful act."

[Petr]

source?

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by Petr
source?

Sorry...New York Times

[NedFLanders]

OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! I knew this was gonna come from the usa some day... so they are gonna welcome palladium with open arms to i guess. The internet is just gonna plain suck in a few years. Censouring(i dont know if that is a word actually.. hope you know what i mean) and centralized controling. And im sorry to say this but i think the us are gonna carry the torch on this one.

[[Labret]]

Its for your own good, they only want to protect us from child predators and terrorists. You have nothing to fear. As a wise man once said, "trust the government".

[directfiesta]

Lobotomy for US citizens is next on the gov agenda...

No more problems

[NedFLanders]

Originally posted by [Labret]
Its for your own good, they only want to protect us from child predators and terrorists. You have nothing to fear. As a wise man once said, "trust the government".

Hahahaha... yeah thats the right thing to do... trust the government...

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by directfiesta
Lobotomy for US citizens is next on the gov agenda...

No more problems

Ooops, seems they did already

[Apollo]

Ermrm, isn't non-centralization the entire purpose of the internet? I mean if everything winds up running through a central processing center that then defeats the entire purpose of having a non-centralized network designed to operate even when portions of it are inoperative. What would happen if that center got blown up by the terrorists they say they would be hoping to catch? Then the entire internet would become inactive, at least anything passing through the US. I like this as well

"You end up without technology that could be very useful to combat terrorism, information warfare or some other harmful act."

How? I'm sure terrorists know a thing or two about encryption. I doubt their sending their chemical weapon research reports using their hotmail account. Obviously just another move on the administration's part to fuck all Americans right up the ass. Today it's to catch viruses...suddenly a hidden bill gets passed to allow law enforcement to randomly monitor email traffic or the sites you're going to....next thing you know you could be under the microscope and have nothing you can say about it.

[Brujah]

I'll wait for a word from the prophet MassiveCock before I know what to think about this.

[theking]

Our judicial system will ultimately decide what the Executive, as well as the Congressional branch of governments, can and cannot do.

May I remind everyone that the United States is in a war. The war has not been officially declared by Congress (the only branch of government that has the authority to issue a formal declaration of war), but both the House and the Senate over whelmingly voted to provide the President with the power to engage in war. This is backed by around 70% approval of the people. It has already been stated that the war may last 10 years or longer. During war the American people will have to suffer certain sacrifices, just as they did during the Second World War. This war is equally as serious as any war that the US has ever engaged in, though the tactics of the enemy are different than previous wars. The government will do, and should do, what ever our courts decide is legal for the government to do, to protect the people of this country and conduct the war against our enemies.

People, mostly of the European persuasion, that keep harping about an invasion of Iraq being all about oil, are just short minded. A large number of our enemies live in the mid-east. The taking of Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate, militarily speaking. If any one bothers to check a gloabal map, it is easy to see. If oil is a by product of strategic postioning then so much the better. Let no one be fooled. The US is at war, engaged in a long term war, and will do whatever it deems necessary to protect its people and engage the enemy, no matter whose toes are stepped on or who protests our methods.

[Apollo]

That's bullshit, the Bush administration has successfully got the media pulling the puppet strings of the general public. Strategic miliatary placement? The US has access to probably half a dozen countries near IRAQ they can use to launch any form of Middle Eastern Offensive, and some of those places probably have a permanent US presence there already.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_38744.asp

The chief inspector said there was absolutely no evidence of nuclear arms in IRAQ. But that apparently isn't good enough. The bush administration got exactly what they wanted, but not the final answer they wanted. It sounds to me like Bush is going to invade Iraq regardless of whether weapons are found prior to going in there. And if after the invasion they're not found..."He must have passed them off to one of his allies or destroyed them before we got here". And if the public questions it the media will tug on the strings again and make everything all better.

[fnet]

We'll make our own wireless spread spectrum drone hopping internet if we have to. Fuck da man.

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by theking
Our judicial system will ultimately decide what the Executive, as well as the Congressional branch of governments, can and cannot do.

People, mostly of the European persuasion, that keep harping about an invasion of Iraq being all about oil, are just short minded. A large number of our enemies live in the mid-east. The taking of Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate, militarily speaking. If any one bothers to check a gloabal map, it is easy to see. If oil is a by product of strategic postioning then so much the better. Let no one be fooled. The US is at war, engaged in a long term war, and will do whatever it deems necessary to protect its people and engage the enemy, no matter whose toes are stepped on or who protests our methods.

I've said it before and will say it again.... It's not about the oil. This has been harped on and on and on by the media about oil. In war people die and it is going 2 happen on both sides. And you better believe they are going to take out Iraq one way or another. And the idoit running Iraq ( and he is an Idoit ) still thinks he can play his games.

[theking]

Originally posted by Apollo
That's bullshit, the Bush administration has successfully got the media pulling the puppet strings of the general public. Strategic miliatary placement? The US has access to probably half a dozen countries near IRAQ they can use to launch any form of Middle Eastern Offensive, and some of those places probably have a permanent US presence there already.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_38744.asp

The chief inspector said there was absolutely no evidence of nuclear arms in IRAQ. But that apparently isn't good enough. The bush administration got exactly what they wanted, but not the final answer they wanted. It sounds to me like Bush is going to invade Iraq regardless of whether weapons are found prior to going in there. And if after the invasion they're not found..."He must have passed them off to one of his allies or destroyed them before we got here". And if the public questions it the media will tug on the strings again and make everything all better.

In addition to strategic positioning it also will send a loud and clear message to countries in the area. If they fuck with the United States, or allow those to exist within their countries, to fuck with the United States, they will be next on the list. Bush made it perfectly clear that if you are not with us you are against us at your peril. I have zero problem with that view point.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by Apollo
And if after the invasion they're not found..."He must have passed them off to one of his allies or destroyed them before we got here".

Wrong! The CIA will plant some. Don't forget, Pointdexter is baaaaack....

[Apollo]

Originally posted by theking


In addition to strategic positioning it also will send a loud and clear message to countries in the area. If they fuck with the United States, or allow those to exist within their countries, to fuck with the United States, they will be next on the list. Bush made it perfectly clear that if you are not with us you are against us at your peril. I have zero problem with that view point.

Yes, the "join us or die" philosophy has always boded well in history. What happens if Bush starts leaning on the UN if they don't agree with him going into Iraq? What if they tell him no and he goes anyways? What then? Does the UN try putting the US back in it's place? The US is the only country itching for this invasion. Others have said they'll back the US during the invasion but they still don't want to do it.

[Apollo]

Originally posted by directfiesta


Wrong! The CIA will plant some. Don't forget, Pointdexter is baaaaack....

lol....you're probably right...what was I thinking?

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by theking


In addition to strategic positioning it also will send a loud and clear message to countries in the area. If they fuck with the United States, or allow those to exist within their countries, to fuck with the United States, they will be next on the list. Bush made it perfectly clear that if you are not with us you are against us at your peril. I have zero problem with that view point.

Some of the countries are wakeing up 2 the fact Bush really is serious and they might be the next one. And then some are 2 dam stupid, they'll wake up when the bomb's start landing.

[eRock]

This is fuckin' bullshit! Now every-fuckin'-thing you do is gonna be linked to terrorism! I like Bush, but this whole "Home Security" thing is bullshit & just making this country more & more of a police state! We are no longer living in a free country! And this isn't just Bush's fault either...the government seems to think they nbeed to hold our hands for everything & most of you people just let them do it cuz you're too damn lazy!

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by jimmyf
Some of the countries are wakeing up 2 the fact Bush really is serious and they might be the next one. And then some are 2 dam stupid, they'll wake up when the bomb's start landing.

Got anymore of that stuff your smoking???? Seems potent

[theking]

Originally posted by Apollo


Yes, the "join us or die" philosophy has always boded well in history. What happens if Bush starts leaning on the UN if they don't agree with him going into Iraq? What if they tell him no and he goes anyways? What then? Does the UN try putting the US back in it's place? The US is the only country itching for this invasion. Others have said they'll back the US during the invasion but they still don't want to do it.

We only went to the UN to appease the diplomats. It was made clear, by the administration from the get go, that the US would act with or without UN approval, with or without allies. You are correct that when push comes to shove we will have allies, even though they may not fully approve. Most countries leaders are not fools and do not want to alienate the most powerful country in the history of the world.

[kindafreaky]

They have a system, its called the NSA

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by theking


the most powerful country in the history of the world.

Empires have fallen ....:

Egypt
Rome
Great Britain

Time will show

[12clicks]

the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by Apollo


Yes, the "join us or die" philosophy has always boded well in history. What happens if Bush starts leaning on the UN if they don't agree with him going into Iraq? What if they tell him no and he goes anyways? What then? Does the UN try putting the US back in it's place? The US is the only country itching for this invasion. Others have said they'll back the US during the invasion but they still don't want to do it.

The UN is ** NO MORE ** without the USA. I know it's very hard for some people 2 understand. The UN understands it, I'm sure a lot'em don't like it, but that's the way it is. And if they vote, use NO force on Iraq, do you really think the USA won't, I don't believe that for a second, and I'd start protesting in the streets. I want that fucker gone. I want 2 kill him before he can kill's me.
**** PERIOD **** and I don't give a flying fuck what you nor anyone else in the world thinks about it.

[jimmyf]

.

[theking]

Originally posted by directfiesta

Empires have fallen ....:

Egypt
Rome
Great Britain

Time will show

You will not be alive to see the fall, so you will never know. The USA is still a young country and we have only been a major world power, basically since the Second World War, and now we are number one. How many of hundreds of years did the Roman Empire last?

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by 12clicks
the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

Won't be the 1st time nor last.

[nocostporn]

it wont pass,if it does we're fucked...but I highly doubt its going to pass

[directfiesta]

CNN NEWS ALERT!

The UN inspector finally found some WMD!

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by directfiesta
CNN NEWS ALERT!

The UN inspector finally found some WMD!

News FLASH... The UN is going 2 do what ever the USA want's it 2 do. There will be No UN without the USA. Rest of the world and 1 hell of a lot people in the USA need's 2 wake up.

[NedFLanders]

Originally posted by theking

Bush made it perfectly clear that if you are not with us you are against us at your peril. I have zero problem with that view point.

That's the strategy the nazis used...

[Apollo]

Originally posted by jimmyf
The UN is ** NO MORE ** without the USA. I know it's very hard for some people 2 understand. The UN understands it, I'm sure a lot'em don't like it, but that's the way it is. And if they vote, use NO force on Iraq, do you really think the USA won't, I don't believe that for a second, and I'd start protesting in the streets. I want that fucker gone. I want use to kill him before he can kill me.
**** PERIOD **** and I don't give a flying fuck what you nor anyone else in the world thinks about it.

Errmmmm....sure. The UN wouldn't normally allow a country with them to go rogue and do their own thing, why would the US be any different? Sure the US is big and tough. But so was Russia and Germany at one point. If the UN doesn't intervene against the US here where does it end? Next thing you know the US decides they want to rid the threat of Fidel...invade Cuba, we're sick of Candian Tariffs....invade Canada, the french are annoying...invade France.

The whole point is that there's a lot more to this than just removing the threat of a guy who may or may not have a nuke. The problem is many of the new voting US citizens haven't had to deal with a war. The closest thing to it was the gulf war and that was overseas. If there had been any bloodshed in Amercia during that time it would have been seen differently.

The september 11th thing was a tragedy....anything that causes the loss of life always is. It's going to be a day of mourning for many years to come. But it seems like every other day there's a suicide bombing in Isreal killing a few dozen children and average citizens. There's no mourning about that....it's simply "That's horrible...so what's on Leno tonight?" It's easy to accept a declaration of war when you'll never have to deal with any of it except read it in the papers.

"I want that fucker gone. I want use to kill him before he can kill me. "

Kill you? WTF did Saddam ever do to you? He never did anything against the US (directly at least). He invaded a small UN country and the US decided to step up to the plate to take care of it. Since then if he has done anything it's been indirect but be sure as hell the US has been fucking around with Saddam since then as well. There has NEVER been a point that Saddam has been a threat to the US....or if he has there's never been a reason made public about it.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by NedFLanders


That's the strategy the nazis used...

Say what you will about the Nazis, they kept the crime rate down.

[NedFLanders]

Originally posted by 12clicks


Say what you will about the Nazis, they kept the crime rate down.

Hahahaha, yeah thats true

[theking]

Originally posted by NedFLanders


That's the strategy the nazis used...

Not quite the same. The Nazi's were not attacked. The United States has been under attack on foreign soil for longer than a generation and then on 9/11 for the first time in modern history the continental United States was attacked. A more devasting attack then that of the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor. We declared unconditional war on Japan and ordered unconditional surrender. We will persue what ever we deem to be necessary in our current war. So the world may as well learn to accept it as fact.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by theking


The United States has been under attack on foreign soil for longer than a generation

You were attacked in Vietnam?????

[winn]

Originally posted by MrPopup
But who cares right? After all...you guys have parties to go to....

The Bush administration 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.

Thought that's exactly what ECHELON does?

[FlyingIguana]

if you don't look at anything illegal, then i guess you shouldn't have anything to worry about

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by 12clicks
the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

12clicks....at what point do people who just sit idly by and proclaim everyone else to be crazy realize that the sky has indeed fallen?

Because I'm trying to figure out why you always proclaim these posts to be "SKY IS FALLING" posts yet you yourself have not indicated what your personal gauge is for when YOU will start being worried...is there a point where you finally might say..."Gee, this isn't right" or "Hey, I feel my liberties are being taken away"

I'm interested in your perspective and not a flame war. Perhaps I am a bit of a worrier, but I prefer to live in a world with both worriers AND those who sit on the sidelines - so help enlighten me.

[theking]

Originally posted by Apollo

Kill you? WTF did Saddam ever do to you? He never did anything against the US (directly at least). He invaded a small UN country and the US decided to step up to the plate to take care of it. Since then if he has done anything it's been indirect but be sure as hell the US has been fucking around with Saddam since then as well. There has NEVER been a point that Saddam has been a threat to the US....or if he has there's never been a reason made public about it.

He lost a war and signed agreements at the end of the war. He has violated those agreements, he has violated each of the UN resolutions imposed against him. He has comitted acts of War literally hundreds of times against the US by firing on our aircraft for the past ten years. In addition he attempted to assasinate a US President. He should have been taken out when he committed his very first act of war.

[theking]

Originally posted by directfiesta




You were attacked in Vietnam?????

The OBL type forces have been attacking us for more than a generation. Vietnam is not being discussed here.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by jimmyf
**** PERIOD **** and I don't give a flying fuck what you nor anyone else in the world thinks about it.

Typical Ignorance. This is a sad trait that is starting to seep into a lot of dim-witted individuals in our self-centered, media/consumer driven "gotta get me a plasma tv" society

"I dont give a fuck about everyone else"

That kind of thought process makes me ill. I have very divergent viewpoints from a lot of people on this board, but I still respect and try and observe from their perspective - even if it is something I vehemently disagree with, I TRY to develop a coherent argument and convince others of the validity my own viewpoint.

Go back to charm school with some of Oliver's money....

[directfiesta]

Lets keep YOUR agenda. But I tought that " longer than one generation" included Vietnam... Well, it seems not. What does it include exactly ???

The OBL forces have been attacking us for more than a generation. Vietnam is not being discussed here.

[winn]

2 theking

Have you read this?

http://home.earthlink.net/~treol/pre...arfre-book.pdf


Take a quick look please.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by winn
2 theking

Have you read this?

http://home.earthlink.net/~treol/pre...arfre-book.pdf


Take a quick look please.

I will... Have a few days off during holidays... or should I stick just to CNN....

[theking]

Originally posted by directfiesta
Lets keep YOUR agenda. But I tought that " longer than one generation" included Vietnam... Well, it seems not. What does it include exactly ???

A generation, if I am not mistaken, is deemed to be twenty years. We withdrew from Vietnam twenty-nine years ago, if my memory serves me well. To correct myself, I believe it is something less than a generation ago that OBL type attacks were first initiated against us.

[theking]

Originally posted by winn
2 theking

Have you read this?

http://home.earthlink.net/~treol/pre...arfre-book.pdf


Take a quick look please.

I checked the link and I will peruse it at my leisure. Thanks.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by MrPopup


12clicks....at what point do people who just sit idly by and proclaim everyone else to be crazy realize that the sky has indeed fallen?

Because I'm trying to figure out why you always proclaim these posts to be "SKY IS FALLING" posts yet you yourself have not indicated what your personal gauge is for when YOU will start being worried...is there a point where you finally might say..."Gee, this isn't right" or "Hey, I feel my liberties are being taken away"

I'm interested in your perspective and not a flame war. Perhaps I am a bit of a worrier, but I prefer to live in a world with both worriers AND those who sit on the sidelines - so help enlighten me.

Its a gauge obtained from age and experience.

Experience tells me that you're an American hater (I see you dropped the "canada" out of your location)
Therefore, I expect you to go find negative things to say about the US.
The shit you scream about never comes about.
I guess if I lived in an after thought of a country, I'd hate the big successful country to my south too. (ok, that's not true really. just saying it to be sympathetic)

I could give you all the reasons not to worry but that's not what I do. I jump 10 steps ahead, see the truth and laugh at the bullshit.