Dell's admission of vetting customer use of its products on behalf of domestic and national security, raises the issue of who else is doing that.
About ten days ago I got a telephone message from a person who claims to work for a major ISP as a sysadmin. This person had previously disclosed the ISP's cooperation with federal authorities to run a nationwide surveillance system from a central hub of the ISP, claiming that the system was set up under a memorandum of understanding when the ISP was bought by a foreign corporation. We've published this allegation on Cryptome. We returned the call and talked about twenty minutes with the person, who said that surveillance of the Net is increasing rapidly over what he had said earlier. Then came a pitch that I get on board by vetting information sent to Cryptome with federal authorities if I thought there might be a threat to national security. The pitch got intense.The person asked if I had criminal background. I said no. Did I believe the US had enemies. I said yes. Did I believe it was my responsibility to protect the nation. I said maybe. Was it not wise to report threats to the nation to authorities? I said no, it was wise to report them to the public so it could protect itself. But, he said, don't you think the threats should be checked with the authorities first? No, I said, it is not for me to decide what is a threat and what is not, that my task is to make information available and let readers decide. Wouldn't you like to boost your authority, he said, by having it supported by official authority? I said no, that I did not want authority, that such authority is widely available for those who want it from responsible sources. Instead, I said, what is needed is more information not filtered by authorities or responsible sources. Don't get me wrong, he said, I admire what you're doing on Cryptome, and I wish I had your courage. Thanks, I said. Still, he said, I think it would be a good idea for you to establish an ongoing relationship with the authorities so you don't get in trouble. No, I said, that is definitely not something I want to do, for if I did that it would be a betrayal of Cryptome readers. You know, he said, I'm very troubled by what my company is doing, but I think in times of danger we all have to do what we can to protect the nation, and I think you should get in touch with the authorities to be sure information you get is okay to publish. No, I said, that's not for me, what is needed in times of danger is more information about how to protect yourself, and in times of danger authorities are often a threat as great as what they warn about. How can you be sure of that, he said, I think you need to talk to the authorities to be sure you know what the threats are and what you are doing is okay. No, thanks, I said. Someday, he said, I hope I have your courage, but now I have to think about my job. Agreed, I said, you should do nothing that will put you in danger, don't jeopardize you job and your family. However, he said, I want you to think very carefully about arranging to check with the authorities about information to be published on Cryptome. Look, I said, the authorities have more than adequate means to keep track of information going on Crypotme and they don't need my help. But you need to protect yourself, don't you see, to be sure that you are not entrapped by information sent to you for that purpose. Agreed, I said, but we were told soon after setting up Cryptome to expect entrapment efforts, so we do, and the reason we don't claim authority is to be sure readers know they have to protect themselves in the same way we do. But wouldn't you like to be protected by the authorities, to advocate to your readers that they do the same? No, I said, that is the role of authorities and responsible publishers, not Cryptome. ----- I think this conversation is like many going on around the country, and shows how recruitment of agents is being done. We'd like to publish such accounts, anonymized or not.
