Obama Going Ahead With Bush-Era Plan To Screen Computer Networks

Washington Post:

The Obama administration will proceed with a Bush-era plan to use National Security Agency assistance in screening government computer traffic on private-sector networks, with AT&T as the likely test site, according to three current and former government officials.

President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve "monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic," and Department of Homeland Security officials say the new program will scrutinize only data going to or from government systems.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[AngieMom57]

There's some network server recording every stroke of your keyboard at all times...

[Tuckerndfw]

The US gov't turned ARPANET (now known as the I'net) over to the public for the primary reason it is now being used.

To spy on people.

There is no such thing as a "private" communication over the I'net.

Anyone who so thinks is very, very foolish.

[Scriobhaim]

The really wonderful thing is this (and, yes, I'm loving it): with Palin now leaving, and the Bush era receding farther into the past, and with, generally, fewer and fewer convenient targets on the right for gratuitous (or even plausible) whipping (remember the White House's sophomoric "Limbaugh is Republican Leader" campaign?; no?; exactly...), the liberals' real nightmare materializes inexorably on the horizon and, if you listen really closely, you can just start to catch the liberals' early squeaks (soon to be shrieks) of horror. The nightmare on the horizon, chillingly taking form, congealing out of syrupy mists, is... The One. The horror consists precisely in the Great Disillusionment, that he is NOT "The One". The left is reaching frenetic overdrive in its desperation to focus, obsess, foam at the mouth at... ANYTHING that will distract them from the doomsday speeding their way. But no distractions will put off forever the day of reckoning. The day when the Left hates Obama. You think the USSR imploded? Hoo, baby, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[StephenJK]

I guess you're relevant on some other plane of existence.

[Scriobhaim]

My, my, what a snappy retort. So-o-o... insightful, and... uh, comprehensive. I remember making comebacks like that myself... when I was 12.

[Agent420]

Your ignorance is showing.

[Ethics101]

Sounds like and 'end of times'er

[Tuckerndfw]

That's really funny (sort of).

We're only going to look at gov't traffic on public networks, trust us.

Yeah, right.

[LeftLeanWing]

Well.... that IS where most cyberattacks on government systems comes from. - the public networks

[Tuckerndfw]

The real question is why is the US gov't allowing their security related or sensitive info computers to be attached to a public network.

That is the real question.

The US gov't has the ability to operate a totally private & secure network. Which they did before they turned it (ARPANET) over to the public and it became known as the I'net.

The gov't has no reason or right to intercept communications on a wholesale basis, regardless what excuse they use.

[winstonian22]

Obama is more like Bush every day. The only difference is that, after organizing all his coups and taking over the auto industy, the banks, etc, its pretty apparent Obama is more power hungry than Bush could ever hope to be. Obama used the word "czar" way too much.

[solarian]

using att the same people who gave access to the nsa for warrantless wire taps i am very disappointed

[Agent420]

Ever notice that the tr0//s from the right seem to have secret numbers as part of their name so they can recognize each other.

[LeftLeanWing]

yes..... I noticed that a while ago...

It allows them the handlers to use a search engine to find all of their comments and easily isolate them from other text using the same words...

I've noticed that you got some integers attached to your name too..

[bascombe]

because corporatists are great at ignoring civil liberties as soon as an excuse hits. it's not so hard to recognize Obama and his DLC/DSCC/DCCC policies. some company, with a lobbyist or three, will get the biggest internet monitoring contract in history, paid for by the taxpayers who are being monitored. Eventually the plann will certainly lead to an attempt to create chinese-style internet controls. bill clinton gave us GATT and NAFTA and rendition.

When the half-assed stim fails, like Krugman says it will, they will need a way to control all the web activity as protesters stop accepting the 'free speech zones' and take it to the streets of DC.

[kimbutgar]

I remeber President Obama saying that in order to get him to change his mind we have to tell him just as President Roosevelt did. The one positive thing about this President is that he listens to the American people and is not stubborn like bush the decider. There is so much we must do and we have to become pests!

[law5arbiter]

Obama needs to make a decision first, Bush did and we are still safe and that is what is important. Obama is now doing a 'Surge' in the other place but it is not a "War on Terror".

[LeftLeanWing]

We weren't safe on 9/11 ......

[AngieMom57]

You know the pests part is over with this new technology; all the White House and/or Homeland Security would need to implement would be a server to "catch" words, phrases, ideas..simple as pie...yummy American Pie, another great song for the 4th of July ;-)

[Agent420]

Words like "pest part'?

[YewNeekId]

"....he listens to the American people...."

Did you crack your coconut? Did the American people tell him to have secret meetings with the coal lobby? Did the American people tell him we don't want a public healthcare option? Did the American people tell him to bail out Wall Street while ignoring the rest of us? Did the American people tell him to support telco spying? Did the American people tell him to keep the list of visitors to the white house a secret?

WAKE UP BEFORE IT"S TOO LATE.

[LeftLeanWing]

The American people told him the they WANTED a Public Healthcare option .

We DID wake up after the rudderless Republicans destroyed or screwed up every thing they touch.

[wonketteRAWKS]

And yet remember FISA?

[bascombe]

BINGO!!!

[StephenJK]

"We're only monitoring overseas communicae with possible terrorist suspects."

HEADLINE:

"Government agencies using FISA are listening to everyone; foreign or domestic."

Not hard to see where this thing will be going considering past behavior.

[YewNeekId]

Yes. I remember Obama voting for FISA. Voting for telecomm company immunity at the expense of our civil rights.

[Bcasey11]

CYBER TERROR!!!!! or information that is dangerous to the status quo

[oregonrain]

Oh yeahhhhhhh­hhhh......­..........­Saw this coming .

[RTIII]

The real news here is that the government wasn't ALREADY, from "day 1" protecting OUR (government's) systems. There are basic steps every computer connected to the internet SHOULD be doing and these include things like keeping logs of what other computers ("who") talk to yours, knowing the nature (not content) of the interaction, the frequency, time of day, etc.

I haven't time for the several paragraphs this would properly deserve, so suffice to say, there are benefits to the administration and security which I know are most often NOT done and none of this has anything to do (necessarily) with peeking inside the data packets for the specific content. For example, if it is observed that network data packets have an address destined to or coming from the Playboy web site, could that be cause for disciplinary action? Maybe. If you see them going to or from a site in Russia or China that's not part of an authorized governmental partnership program, maybe it _is_ time to investigate espionage, etc.

...All this is EASILY done and does not even require doing anything more than looking at the "external" addresses of the data packets, not their content. ...Again, the REAL story here is that this was not instituted eighteen or twenty years ago!
.

[nellie]

Thank you. Excellent post. The title of this article is so misleading, ostensibly to drum up interest, and yet there is a real story here that should generate some genuine concern.

[AngieMom57]

"Again, the REAL story here is that this was not instituted eighteen or twenty years ago!"

DITTO for every other challenge, controversy that we are facing.

Thx ;-)

[Sweetbay]

You answered a question I posted yesterday. So, thank you for your post.

I watched a panel discussion on this subject on C-span a couple of months ago. There were many different types of security companies represented on the panel.

When the panel took questions from the audience the subject matter went over my head. They were, after all, talking to experts in the field who all knew what the other was talking about.

Now, I didn't fully understand the mechanics involved, but I do remember they were all very excited that this was being undertaken because we finally had an administration which understood our vulnerability to cyberattacks.

[YewNeekId]

It may be naive to assume that this was not being done. The One is just providing cover for more seizure of your civil rights

[RTIII]

Well, I've worked in "secure" government institutions at a highly technical (computer) level wherein I had to know the details and I can tell you that these things were not being done at that facility at that time. And, I have friends who remain in position to know, so I personally am not naive about this.

However, you are right to point out that this may well be "cover for more seizure of [our] civil rights." ABSOLUTELY possible. And, I _am_ concerned about it. I'm not quite sure what to _do_ about it, though...
.

[blist14]

what government uses it abuses

[dianhow]

My beef with Bush was this: Bush / Cheney lied us into Iraq war - gave triilions in cuts to fat cats some who sent jobs overseas- he proposed we let Dubai ' protect' out ports !!
he was trying to 'privatize ' S S ! Bush Voted NO on a raise in the min wage. His huge tax cuts to the top - Caused us to borrow heavily from China. Pres Clinton left W a surplus- and millions of new jobs. Clinton also warned him about how dangerous Bin Laden was & the CIA did as well.
in Aug 2001 quote ' Bin laden to try to hit INSIDE THE US. ' It was ignored NO he did not keep us SAFE ! If a lie is repeated enough - millions of folks buy it.

[YewNeekId]

Please remember the Bill Clinton lobbied very hard for Dubai Ports World to take control of our shipping ports.

[dianhow]

14 Abuses ? yes many under GOP ' leadership ' of 20 years REagan / Bush Sr / W
The real ABUSE was lying us into war and the horrible results of that war !

[LeLoup]

After reading the article, (ahem!)

Premise: Given the importance of the Internet, some form of monitoring for security reasons is warranted. If someone does not agree with that, well, the rest of this post is moot.

It's a good thing they had meetings with privacy advocate groups on that. At least, it shows a willingness to get that stuff right.

The idea of monitoring traffic to and from gov agencies make sense. However, the devil is out there, somewhere (fade in The X-files music) lurking in the details

My biggest concern is about future monitoring of the safeguards of this program. Who'll be in charge of making sure that, err, shall we say mission creep? does not infect this whole thing. Pretty darn tempting to use a legitimate surveillance program with well defined objectives and put it to "other uses", "because we can", it'd be so much more "efficient".

The Administration has its work cut out if it want to get this puppy right.

[dynagirl7371]

Seriously, read the article.

[humanbeing-rick]

The big difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama will only monitor the traffic going to/from government sites. Bush and his neo-cons were ready to monitor the entire internet, in true Orwellian ideology. Obama is taking a much more reasonable approach.
Any enterprise would want to protect themselves on the internet, and we all do, with firewalls, anti-spy ware, etc. For a large enterprise such as the US government, it is with just due diligence and prudence that they protect their networks.

[dianhow]

Right I'm not a bit worried about this. Unlike BUSh - Obama is not drunk with power.
Thats jsu my 2 cents .worth

[conserve joe]

ya, Obama doesn't want to increase his power at all (auto industries, power of Federal Reserve, offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.” )
Sen Byrd (D)
His own party thinks he is power hungry.....

[pepperdude]

I am falling in love with Obama. The more he copies Bush is the more I love him.

[smchp]

not getting enough mileage out of teleprompter and mustard spew?

[dianhow]

Copies BUSh ? hardly. Bush's sins were massive- a war he lied us into - causing death & destruction - and making new enemies all over the world- giving trillions in cuts to fat cats- which
forced us to borrow from Comunist China - just to run gov't and pay for 2 wars. Reagan & BUsh's policy of deregulation of Wall St etc led us to this crisis .
and he tried to give Dubai control of our ports ! I could go on but you get the picture.

[dianhow]

Did you love the Iraq war he lied us into as well - that killed and maimed so many and
cost us trillions ? do not let facts get in your way dude .