White House Scrambles to Defuse (ISPs) Privacy Concerns

DC.Internet.com ^

[Dallas]

The White House scrambled over the weekend to alleviate privacy violation fears raised by its proposal to build a monitoring system as an "early warning center" to track Internet use in the U.S. The proposal is part of the final version of "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," expected to be released in early 2003.

According to reports last week, the Bush Administration would require Internet service providers (ISPs) to build the system and to track their users. Few details were released by the White House. The proposal immediately raised concerns from privacy advocates who said the idea may cross a line regarding current corporate and personal privacy laws.

The sticking point is not government protection against viruses and hacker attacks on the nation's information infrastructure, but rather the method, techniques and communications process between the government, private companies and individual users. Currently, there are strict laws concerning telephone wire taps, and it is unclear if those same protections will be extended for new government Internet monitoring techniques.

In response to the privacy violation concerns, a Department of Homeland Security official said the administration does not plan to monitor what individuals do on the Internet, and Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's cybersecurity advisor, stressed that, "this early warning system would, if companies chose to create it, involve only highly aggregated information on the overall health of the Internet."

Andrew Schulman, an independent software litigation consultant based in Santa Rosa, Calif., said last week, "It sounds like they are planning a grand version of some sort of pattern matching software that will examine streams of e-mail, instant messages and Web site addresses." Schulman said the software could be a help in tracking terrorist threats, but would alter current corporate and surveillance rules.

There are still unanswered questions about what "real-time" monitoring technology will be used, and what opportunities it may provide for information security software vendors.

"The concern is obviously we have Fourth amendment protections in terms of search and seizure, and there can only be reasonable, articulated and particularized searches. The danger of a system like this is that it is not based on suspicion of specific information, it's a sweep without suspicion," Schulman added.

While the White House proposal alludes to ISPs shouldering some of the responsibility to implement the new system, there are no details regarding whether ISPs will have to pay, or will be subsidized by government grants. It is also possible that ISPs will need to revise their existing contracts with users, if more intrusive surveillance practices are put in place.

[Dallas]

I always knew the big brother thing would happen in my lifetime....

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

bump

[thepitts]

The sooner the better.

[VRWC_minion]

This sounds like a high tech highway vehicle counter system used now to count vehicle traffic. Not only sounds harmless, it sounds like something that someone should be monitoring.

As long as the data is published or available, I don't see what is wrong with this.

[Dallas]

If you understand it, and can live with it, then that's good enough for me.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Alternate title: White House urges sheeple to go back to sleep.

[arly]

1984

[Right_in_Virginia]

"...it's a sweep without suspicion."

This is beyond upsetting. I hope the administration takes a deep breath, exhales and thinks through all the ramifications of a system like this.

[isthisnickcool]

1984

Orwell's depiction was on the money. Cameras everwhere and they "knew" things. From everything I've read this is more of an "up/down" net health monitoring system. Something that has been needed for a long time.

Keep in mind that the gov't cannot build this alone. They need the private sector and in this case it allows the private sector to monitor the gov't just as much as the gov't monitoring the private sector. Pretend that the gov't was doing this all on their own (they can't) and it was intrusive and monitoring "everything" (again, they can't). They would end up doing about as 1% as good with this as they do keeping our borders 100% "secure".

So, 1984? This? Nope. Not even close.

[F16Fighter]

"This sounds like a high tech highway vehicle counter system used now to count vehicle traffic. Not only sounds harmless, it sounds like something that someone should be monitoring."

Do you believe the Clintons would have stopped at 900 FBI files had they not gotten caught?

The power of internet surveillance will eventually be abused by any Democratic president.

[hedgetrimmer]

Why do you let it? Aren't we a sovereign people whose government serves us?

If we as a people respected our own Constitution and did our civic duty as citizens, you wouldn't see the big brother thing at all. Isn't your freedom and your privacy worth defending?

[MineralMan]

"The power of internet surveillance will eventually be abused by any Democratic president.
"

And probably by any Republican one, as well. I wonder if Libertarian Freepers, some of whom have had some pretty ugly things to say about GWB, think that they're not of interest in such a sweep. Think again.

[VRWC_minion]

Do you believe the Clintons would have stopped at 900 FBI files had they not gotten caught?

i don't believe they stopped

The power of internet surveillance will eventually be abused by any Democratic president.

I believe that either party would abuse this info but based on the description of the article I don't see what individual information is planned to be gathered. The analogy sounds like the same kind of data gathered by my state that counts the number of autos using a stretch of the highway. If all they are seeking is top level statistics, I don't have a problem with that.