Us government plans surveillance of the entire internet

Whereas securing the internet was initially left primarily in the hands of the private sector, an agency is now to gain access to all data held by u.S. Providers

Apparently the u.S. Government is planning to set up a central monitoring system for the internet under state control after all. At the very least, a proposal to this effect is being considered as part of the "national strategy to secure cyberspace" prepared by the president’s critical infrastructure protection board (pcipb).

The pcipb was established on 16. October 2001 after the attacks of 11.9. Established by the president with an order to protect the information systems for the critical infrastructure. It emphasized cooperation between government agencies and the private sector.

In september 2002, after questions had been directed to appropriate organizations and several meetings had been held, a first draft was presented by chairman richard a. Clarke published. Cyberspace is seen as important to national security and the "homeland security" the developed strategy is therefore the security concept for the internet against "intentional and malicious attacks" american information systems for the new domestic security agency "department of homeland security" (big brother state usa?). It is clear that the traditional distinctions are becoming blurred, as the security concept spans the economic, infrastructure and defense sectors.

The first version referred to the nimda worm, which shortly after the 11.9. And to code red, a worm that is said to have caused a lot of damage "cyber attack" on 150.000 computers over 14 hours, which reportedly caused billions of dollars in damage. The trend is clear, and we can expect the wave of attacks to continue to rise. This is very dangerous for a nation that "is completely dependent on cyberspace", very dangerous. The core of the information infrastructure is the internet, which has become increasingly insecure as it has spread. But since 85 percent of the nation’s important infrastructure is in the hands of the private sector, the state can only provide the necessary protection together with the private sector. The cooperation should be voluntary. At the heart of the coordinated effort at the time was to be a "cyberspace network operations center" which would not be run by the state, but would ensure the exchange of information and the cooperation of all organizations and institutions involved.

This principle of voluntariness seems to be abandoned now, according to information of the new york times. The plan is to require all internet providers to set up a centralized system to monitor the internet and, by extension, internet users. Details or costs are apparently not mentioned in the draft, which is to be published next year.

The draft is still being worked on, tiffany olson of the pcipb asserted. She also tried to fend off the expected criticism of the monitoring in a not quite convincing way, since the proposed methods did not necessarily have to include the monitoring of individual internet users. A comprehensive "national network operations center" is important, however, because internet providers, security firms and other companies have only ever been able to monitor a certain part of the internet: "we don’t have anyone who can see the whole picture. When something happens, we don’t know it’s happening until it’s too late."

The "early warning center" is now to be operated by the state rather than by industry. In addition to timely detection of attacks, it is apparently also supposed to provide protection against viruses and worms. If, however, one also wants to recognize and trace the perpetrators of attacks, real-time monitoring of all internet traffic could also include that of individual users.

The plan apparently provides for similar surveillance of the internet as is done in russia with sorm (sistema operativno-rozysknykh meropriyatii) (the supreme court of russia restricts the eavesdropping law sorm). Providers are required to set up real-time interfaces for russian intelligence to monitor all traffic (sorm clouds over europe). In russia, too, only individual users are supposed to be intercepted by court order, but such open access to data allows for ultimately uncontrollable surveillance, which would not (yet) be legal in the u.S. Even under the patriot act. But that love themselves yes others.

After all, a court sitting in secret has now already made it possible for an unimpeded flow of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take place under the patriot act. Since then, the fbi has also been able to conduct domestic surveillance on behalf of the intelligence services (usa: free flow of information between intelligence services and fbi). And the planned centralized monitoring of all internet traffic passing through the servers of american providers would also be a step towards the planned total surveillance and data mining system to be developed at darpa (total surveillance; worldwide sniffing system).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *