Yep.....very reminisent of 1994 and the Clipper Chip. Back then it was Clinton trying to pry into our business. Regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time, they all want to remove as many of our freedoms as possible. Sucks, huh!?!
At 07:06 PM 12/24/2002, you wrote: >excuse my french... fuck bush... what an ass! why? its pointless since >thats what people dont want.. do you want someone hiding in your bushes >monitoring your house because in an email you said that that movie was >"The Bomb" jesus christ! there is no need for that junk > >On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:16:02 -0600 >John Hebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > December 20, 2002 > > White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet > > By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ > > > > > > he 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." > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > General mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >[email protected] >http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
