[KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet

[Robert G. Brown]

>>>>The subject line is the title of the article at:
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html
>>>It will succeed - in making lots of beaurocrats, wall steeters, IT companies
>>>and consultants quite wealthy.
>>I have my doubts. IMO the folks at 1600 Pennsy are going to get visited by 
>>the boys from Ft. Meade. They're going to givethe Texans a talkin' to..
>>a DC talkin' to. These lectures feature words like "intractable", and 
>>"minimal probability", and let's not forget "constitutionally questionable".
>>PPerhaps the Bushites would feel OK about riding roughshod over one of those 
>>conditions, but rarely all three.
>
>They (the Executive branch) pulled off Carnivore,  I don't particularly 
>see the difference here, except it scale.  But the technical details of 
>how it would work and what it would monitor were thin, to say the least.
Scale is a lot of the reason why it won't work. Scale tr not linear; it 
translares into stepply non-linear costs. The boys at 1.6e3 Pennsy will put
their bix elsewhere, probably spread more broadly, maybe more effectively.

>>>Beyond that.... it's call "encryption" people.  Capture my data streams, go
>>>ahead, and have fun doing it.
>>Oh, they'll outlaw this, if they're serious about persuing any policy that
>>purports to "police" the net in the US. I think of encryption policy as a
>>kind of canary...when it falls over we'll know the jongoists and the 
>>simple-answer people have made a succesful grab for the policy controls.
>This is the one I doubt they could pull off.
I never claimed they'de pull it off. Watch for it nonetheless. There are 
many contexts in which this could come up. Ask me about it when it crops up.

>The corporations would be  very unhappy.
They'll do their part, and fall into line. The real motivations are starting
to become clear. 

>>>"We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture,"
>>They're only starting to learn about this. Let us hop they learn weel
>>before they atart making policy.
>>>a) It is one MIGHTY BIG picture.
>>Rhus will come the lecture, as above, when the guys out at Meade come downtown
>>and heave Dubya's boys into the 1990's, this is going to be one of the very
>>first points they malke.
>Thus, we must spend MIGHTY BIG dollars....
No, I don't agree. The focus out at Meade is to increase quality now, not 
quantity. THey  no longer beleive quantity is the issue. 

>>>b) It isn't a "picture", it is a high-action IMAX movie.  The "picture"
>>>   changed while I was typing this sentance.  Good luck.
>>True enough, but as such, not a bariier. Lots of things are very dynamic
>>and can be secured. I take a dim view of anyone trying to do this from the
>>top down, and it's not really going to stop the folks they want to stop from 
>>doing what they want to do.
>I assume that most people want to operate secure services at their network 
>edges, and that wiit time this problem will in large part heal itself from 
>the bottom up.  A national exchange for free SSL certificates would be a 
>big step forward, to promote encrypted DNS trafffic.  And encouraging top 
>level domains to promote the use of SRV for service location would make 
>both a more secure and easier to use (quasi-transparent) network.
All well and good perhaps, but it doesn't really address the issue of 
national security, or being addressed by the folks up top. Carnivore and co.
go further than mere security, they want to snoop. THis is what's not Linear, 
and they'll find it ineffecive in disrupting the other guys' operations.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---