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

[BlueStateMensch]

This is fine with me.... so long as it's used as it is SUPPOSED to be used.

[TheBaffler]

Of course it's fine with you, you think Obama is infallible. Of all the uncritical-minded sycophants and bots here, you're the bottiest.

[Chloe33]

LOL. Just imagine the indignant diatribe ---with all the CAPS----- BSMensch would have delivered if it were BUSH that had actually done this. At least we were spared THAT.

[philko]

Just for the sake of argument, suppose that for the next 4 or even 8 years, Obama uses this as it's SUPPOSED to be used. By the time of the next Administration, the taps, filters and all that stuff are in place and nobody even thinks about them anymore.

Now, suppose - and I realize that this is a real stretch here - that somewhere in the not too distant future, we end up with an Administration that has a belief that it doesn't have to follow rules and guidelines put in place by a previous Administration. What then?

There oughtta be a rule: Never give even the most benevolent of Administrations tools that you don't want the most malevolent to have.

[Kassandra]

You mean like the bill (dunno if it passed or got stuck in as an amendment somewhere) Jello Jay Rockefeller wants to give the president ( any president) the ability to "shut down the internet in time of emergency"­...like that????

[hulagirrrl]

philko, suppose that somewhere in the future we end up with an administration that doesn't follow rules.....­....
Welcome to the future now, because as you see with the lack of transparency in the bail out there are two sets of rules, one for us and one for them.

[Samalabear]

I wish I could feel this was a benevolent Administration, but right now I I am not seeing it progress that way.

[gbrooks]

I've been making that argument forever philko, so glad to see others who've recognized this problem.

[PoliticalAmazon]

Obama has kept and, in some cases, reinforced some of the very Bush policies Obama said in his campaign he was against and would over turn.

It is illogical to believe that the Obama administration will only use this for pure purposes.

[Cambridge9]

We are in the cyber age and, with that in mind, there are many more ways for bad guys to attack us (without ever firing a shot) and while privacy has to be a definite concern, the secutiry of this country has to be primary. We can complain all we want about what the last prez. did or did not do, but there were times when security was a valid concern.

I am very naive when it comes to cyberspace. I can't get broadband, use a cell phone, twitter, etc. where I live in the wilds of nowhere, but I can visulaze the nerds of the world hacking into our business, military, government and homeland security sites - which would be catastrophic.

We boast the best military in the world - which is great - but in this age we have to have the best cyber protection too.

I stand with the President!

[awibod]

"I am very naive when it comes to cyberspace. I can't get broadband, use a cell phone, twitter, etc"
-Cambridge9

If that was really the case then how did you make this post if not on a computer or a cell phone?

What I don't trust about this process is AT&T's involvement. As a former employee I am aware of their unethical practices and misuse with information. The Government wants to protect their network that could be done without any need to get close to the private sectors networks nor the involvement of AT&Treason.

[Kassandra]

YUP

[RTIII]

Ya got that right!
.

[oregonrain]

Thank You !

[Dynamohum]

YO fellow dems and progressives this is a GOOD thing. The threat of global cyber terrorism is a very real threat. The Pentagon has been hacked before. Government computers were hacked over the past year. Our electirc grid could be hacked. Nuclear plant operations could be hacked. So yeah I want the leadership of my country to take all necessary precautions to protect our way of life! This is not big brother...­.if you think that you are PARANOID. Then there is the terror network chatter that should be intercepted and analyzed. GOOD THING.

[cmilburn]

Totally agrees. This progressive Democrat who campaigned hard for Obama and, by the way, is NOT enamored of some of the things he's done or not done so far, is down with this. Hacking government computers is a great way to shut down this country. Think what would happen if some bad guys got some web sites like this one to shut down for a week. People would be up in arms. Riots in the streets. Porn industry shut down! Now think what would happen if some REALLY important systems got hacked and shut down. That's what this is about and....AS LONG AS THAT IS ALL IT IS...this is a good thing.

[philko]

So we enlist the aid of a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT company. Those guys have such a great record of putting the national good before corporate profits.

You mention that "our electric grid could be hacked" and that's probably more true than all of us know. Now ask why it's so vulnerable. The answer is that there was no PROFIT to be made by investing in enhancing the security. That would have involved not only spending significant money to prevent threats that *may* occur *in the future*, it would also have entailed utilities cooperating across company boundaries. So it wasn't done. Short term corporate interest trumped long term public good.

Finally, this *IS* big brother. Maybe not "government as big broter" (at least right now), but definitely "corporations as big brother".

The citizens cannot stop this. But we can insist on reciprocal transparency. Those who are spying on us need to be doing so from a glass booth and not a dark room. We (or trusted surrogates) need to be able to see enough of the process to know the capabilities are not being abused.

[plaidsportcoat]

wrong. we had a little vandalism in San Jose about 2 months ago. Someone cut a cable. All land lines, cell phones and internet in huge areas of Northern California were down for at least 12 or more hours. I have a hunch a computer security consortium did that to make a point. when anyone can get a video monitoring system at Costco and mount in a couple hours - it's quite suspicious that there were no cameras trained on something that important.

[ezeflyer]

Trust me, he sez.

[TheBaffler]

No longer, I sez.

[Jeff Cunningham]

All these Bush policies Obama is keeping intact are disappointing, but here's a theory ...

Nothing truly prepares you for being President of the United States. No matter how much time you spend in Washington, doing any number of things, the only way you know what the President deals with every day is to actually be President. Maybe, on the surface, Obama thought Bush was wrong in enacting some of these policies while he was campaigning.

Now that he's in office -- and is finally privy to the daily security briefings and all the other intel that *only the President* gets -- maybe Obama realizes why the previous administration had these policies. Besides, just because he's in line with them *now* doesn't mean he still is come two years' time. I'm just guessing, but that's probably what's going on.

Railing against Bush on the campaign trail sounded well and good -- and it really spoke to the people -- but now that Obama is in office, maybe he finally sees the full picture and understands that, in some ways, maybe Bush had it right.

Besides, if he gets health care reform passed and the stimulus gets the economy back on track, none of this will matter. Those two things happen, he's a shoe-in in 2012. Wll, he might be anyway, cause who's gonna run against him and stand a chance?

[plaidsportcoat]

"and is finally privy to the daily security briefings and all the other intel that *only the President* gets"

I see this rationale ad nauseum on these posts- is it you?? Obama, very intelligent, had many members of previous administrations advising him - people who knew EXACTLY what it is like when you first get into office. These people aren't naive everymen. He made promises he knew he couldn't keep because he wanted to win, and he had a racial disadvantage. He needed all the votes he could get - so he made promises he had NO IDEA whether he could keep or not. sovatchagonnado?

[dizmo4]

As someone that works in the Telecommunications industry, the Federal Goverment is generally one of the biggest clients. The government does not have their own fiber optic lines, telephone lines, etc. They rely on the private sector for 95% of their communication needs. If the government wants to have secure networks as I think everyone should want, it necessitates a certain degree of monitoring by the agency whose job it is to secure the nations communication networks -- the NSA. There's certain patterns that emerge preceding an attack that can be monitored. Tracing the attack back to its source almost necessitates a degree of monitoring of "private" networks.

Unfortunately, many people on this board seems to think NSA=bad since the Bush administration abused the authority. Which is unfortunate, since the NSA really is quite an important agency these days.

[katooom]

However, since the gov uses open/private networks, it is very easy for them to snoop where they are not supposed to under the guise of policing themselves. Yeah, right, that's it, policing themselves.

The NSA is a veritable black hole for money and waste and fraud and abuse. They rarely get the facts straight: bomber gap, missile gap, cuba/castro, bay of pigs, WMDs, anthrax, .... Just what have they gotten right lately?

The return on investment in the NSA is dubious at best. These are the guys that briefed Powell for the famous UN speech before the Iraq debacle.

The NSA should not be trusted ONE INCH to obey any laws. They often consider themselves above (or below) the law in their deep black world.

[InLosAngeles]

Are you sure you're describing the NSA? Sounds a lot more like the most recent description of congress.

[Tinsdale]

dizmo4, Thanks for your comment.
Companies that are government contractors have security guidelines that must be followed to provide necessary safeguards to protect their government clients. These are common risk management principles and practices. They may include Common Access I.D. Cards, encryption requirements, background checks, security clearances, etc.

Some basic safeguards are also needed to protect the government from intentional or accidental harm that can arise from cyber contacts and communications from the general public.

Cyber threats are a genuine concern. Incidents like the "Titan Rain" attack on the U.S. defense community are a straw in the wind and a primitive preview of what is to come.

[getoffmedz]

Relax, folks. You must read and understand.

The administration wants to continue monitoring GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS on public networks.

I doubt the Obama administration cares about the porn or copyrighted material y'all download.

heh

[Joe Caps]

It seems that the more Obama reviews Bush policies, the more he thinks that Bush had it right.

Maybe he should have looked into these policies before campaigning against them and smearing GWB.

Oh wait, that's right, he knew George had it right all along and just used people like you who are gullible enough to believe him to gain support.

Will you all vote for him again anyway, I'm sure. Liberals have no principles.

[getoffmedz]

Take things out of context much?

[bilmardre]

Obama decides to live in the White House, just like Bush.

[t iessa]

Your description is of 'bots not liberals. They are not liberals.

[Joe Caps]

George W. Obama

I love how you lefties are in denial about this policy and indefinite detention of terror suspects.

It's going to happen, then what are you going to say?

Probably the same when he contiued every other policy of his that followed George Bush. You won't say anything because you are cowards.

What is more important:
(a) principles
(b) obama cultism

[philko]

(c) princi-polls

[speakingtruth2power]

I campaigned for Obama and got exactly what I expected, some one better that Mac Same.

It's only the politically naive who expected far too much, who are disappointed in the improved leader.

Before any President could really bring US change, we would first have had to change the Congress.

As a student of the sixties, I know what happens when any President goes too far off the reservation.

[Joe Caps]

Claiming to be a "student of the sixties" is not a good way to gain credibility. If anything, it hurts.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Steamboater]

You'd be better with a hit from that pipe. It might give your delusions about the 60's some reality.

[Cambridge9]

Sounds like you weren't born until 1972.

[getoffmedz]

mr. speakingtr­uthtopower does not need to gain credibility, he already has it. Look at his profile.

You are new here.

Read and learn.

[confidance government]

Sounds like an attack on the 4th amendment; I would highly recommend the discontinuation of this and other Bush era policies such as retaining the authority to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" and "indefinite detention.­"

[confidance government]

To be balanced there is a need to prevent attacks on critical government systems, but giving this job to the DHS makes it very difficult to have any faith that this technology will not be eventually applied to all civilian traffic.

[Steamboater]

You're right. It's not paranoid to think that this going to expand into an area that's dirtyand all we get from some of these posters are excuses for Obama and blijnd support, no matter if the issue is this one. the uppping of the ante in Afghanistan with more and more troops firghting for 'democracy'', torure photos, DADT etc. This is playing out more and more like Bush's third term.

[MacQ]

I predict that it will be just fine with libs, because it's Oooooobama.
When Bush did the same things they were heinous, right?
You folks have no cred, and that's why.

[philko]

I'll turn the question back onto you:

Do you approve of Obama's decision on this matter? Will you actually step up and say that you think he's doing something right? Or will you issue a typical knee-jerk right-wing condemnation of all things Obama, even though he's doing the same thing that Saint W did?

Accusations of hypicrisy cut both ways.

[NYC80]

That is the problem both sides are hypocrits. The R claims that they are for small government, but under shrub they expanded it so much. The left claims is trust the man he is doing the right thing. I think the R and L work for the same employer , but people don't want to understand that. So when this government become a totalitarian regime don't blame it blame yourself. Of course both sides!!!!!

[JiminNC]

Actually, I would have thought they had been doing that from the start.

[XME]

As the "employer" of the government, people may not like it, but he has every right...pr­ivate industry monitors theirs and their employees EVERY DAY.

[Steamboater]

The issue is not whether Obama has the right to do this but should he be doing it?

[XME]

Yes...ther­e is a reason employers have a right to monitor traffic on their networks and internet, and when it comes to the gov, what's coming IN is just as important as what's going out. I'm all for privacy, but this is a public connection and the government has a right and a DUTY to ensure it's secure.

Anyone who works for the gove who has a problem with it should be more concerned about what they might be doing that they don't want anyone to know about!

[JiminNC]

To and from government systems. I don't have a problem with that.

[Joe Caps]

LOL you are almost as funny as you are naive.

Why do you think this is news? All they are doing is securing their own network, right? Like installing a new virus scanner on downloads at the Labor Department? Are you serious?

In order for data to get TO government computers it must go through a PRIVATE NETWORK. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise.

Are you saying they do not look at inbound data now, and they are just starting to do this?

Better go make yourself another batch of kool aide before it wears off there buddy.

[flyribbon]

Look up. There is a black helicopter above your house. They are watching you.

[Steamboater]

You believe everything government says and just because it comes from the man you voted for? If everyone stays with that assumption, we're in trouble.