U.S. TO MONITOR INTERNET

HOME TOP STORIES ARCHIVE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES-ARE THEY WORKING? TEA PARTY INFO & UPDATES SEX OFFENDER FILES WHY DONATE TO FIGHT PERVERTED JUSTICE?  BOOKS AMERICAN'S REALITY CHECK  LINKS OF INTEREST KEEPING YOUR KIDS SAFE NCMEC: BY THE NUMBERS MORE AND MORE KIDS & TEENS BEING CHARGED W/SEX CRIMES HELP FIND HALEIGH CUMMINGS TRILOGY OF TRAGEDY MELISSA STRICKLAND'S MURDERER STILL AT LARGE MISSING CHILDREN & UNSOLVED MURDERS CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE NCMEC 101 PERVERTED JUSTICE - THE UNTOLD STORIES CUTTING THE FAT BIG BROTHER OBAMA: NO GUNS U.S. ECONOMIC DISASTER WE'RE MAKING THE NEWS! OHIO WOMAN TOPLESS IN PARK CYBERSTALKING VIGILANTES THE SECOND CHANCE ACT A CHILD'S STORY MULTIPLE STUDIES EXPOSE FRAUD COMBATTING CYBER-HARASSMENT VIGILANTE MURDERS CORALROSE FULLWOOD HOW ACCURATE ARE THE REGISTRIES? US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good THE IRONY OF MARK LUNSFORD THE LUNSFORD PARADOX  THE LUNSFORD PARADOX CONTINUES LUNSFORD'S SON ESCAPES RSO REGISTY  POLITICAL RED HERRINGS JUSTICE...FLORIDA STYLE BLOOD ON THE HANDS OF GEORGIA LAWMAKERS AMERICA'S WAR ON SEX AZ SENATOR' SON GETS SLAP ON WRIST PAGE-N' MARK FOLEY THE ADAM WALSH ACT PARENTAL "RED ALERT" WE ARE WHAT WE EAT DANGEROUS PEDOPHILES? ARE THEY KIDDING??? PROPAGANDA IN POLITICS REGISTER THIS! BAIT AND SWITCH DRUG OFFENDER REGISTRIES TRAGEDY AND TYRANNY U.S. TAKES AIM WHO IS HANK ASHER? PROPAGANDA IN POLITICS SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN POLITICAL CHICKEN LITTLE MURDERED CHILDREN PARENTS PROFILED ADAM WALSH ACT RON BOOK FLORIDA LOBBYIST MESSAGE OF HOPE ABOUT  CONTACT US Budgeting Reason

FBI wants widespread monitoring of 'illegal' Internet activity

***************************************************

The FBI on Wednesday called for new legislation that would allow federal police to monitor the Internet for "illegal activity." From CNETnews

April 23, 2008

FBI wants widespread monitoring of 'illegal' Internet activity

WASHINGTON--The FBI on Wednesday called for new legislation that would allow federal police to monitor the Internet for "illegal activity."

The suggestion from FBI Director Robert Mueller, which came during a House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearing, appears to go beyond a current plan to monitor traffic on federal-government networks. Mueller seemed to suggest that the bureau should have a broad "omnibus" authority to conduct monitoring and surveillance of private-sector networks as well.

The surveillance should include all Internet traffic, Mueller said, "whether it be .mil, .gov, .com--whichever network you're talking about." (See the transcript of the hearing.)

In response to questions from Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, Mueller said his idea "balances on one hand, the privacy rights of the individual who are receiving the information, but on the other hand, given the technology, the necessity of having some omnibus search capability utilizing filters that would identify the illegal activity as it comes through and give us the ability to preempt that illegal activity where it comes through a choke point."

In response, Issa said: "Can you have someone on your staff designated to work with members of Congress on trying to craft that legislation?"

If any omnibus Internet-monitoring proposal became law, it could implicate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, courts have ruled that police need search warrants to obtain the content of communication, and the federal Wiretap Act created "super warrant" wiretap orders that require additional steps and judicial oversight.

In addition, it's unclear whether "illegal activity" would be limited to responding to denial-of-service attacks and botnets, or would also include detecting other illegal activities, such as online gambling, the distribution of "obscene" images of adults engaged in sexual acts, or selling drugs without a license.
Robert Mueller

Robert Mueller
(Credit: FBI )

To be fair, Wednesday's discussion of the plan was geared toward cybercrime and the Bush administration's classified "cyberinitiative," which includes a shadowy program known as "Einstein."

Some politicians have already raised concerns that even Einstein, which is described as dealing only with government networks and not private ones, could infringe upon the privacy rights of American citizens. It's already in place at 15 federal agencies, but Homeland Security has said it's still preparing the necessary privacy impact assessments for a proposed $293 million governmentwide Einstein expansion.

Issa, for his part, referred on Wednesday to malicious attacks being undertaken by foreign and domestic hackers who want to "take control of computers" and harvest the national-security secrets and private information of government agencies, private companies, and individual Americans.

"What authorities do you need to monitor, looking for those illegal activities, and then act on those, both defensively and, either yourselves or certainly other agencies, offensively in order to shut down a crime in process?" Issa asked.

In response, Mueller said he would be happy to have his legislative staff work with members of Issa's committee on creating a bill for a broader-reaching surveillance system.

Issa suggested that perhaps the FBI already has the power to seek voluntary private-sector partners that would like to be "defended" by its agents, provided that they give the FBI their consent. Mueller, however, wasn't so sure, saying, "that's going to require some thought."

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner

BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF THE P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT

China's Internet: Let a Thousand Filters Bloom

Aided by US technology companies, Beijing tightens its control of information flow
Rebecca MacKinnon



CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts: In early June, Chinese trying to create blogs on a Microsoft-hosted service using words like "democracy", "freedom," or "human rights" in the title received a rude reminder: "The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity. Please type a different title," said a message. This warning equating democracy and freedom to profanity marks a new milestone in the continuing battle for free expression in China, with a Western software behemoth openly throwing its weight behind government censors. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

More insidious than the open restriction on the blogging site is the invisible but fine mesh of censorship that China has installed, thanks to the assistance from leading Western firms. China is now engaged in an even larger investment in technology that would help control what its citizens can read on the web and what they can express. This system of censorship has undermined earlier optimism about the internet ushering an era of free expression in China.

How effective is this system? Not 100 percent, by any means, because tech-savvy users can always find ways around internet blocks. But experts who have studied China's system conclude that, as far as the Chinese Communist Party is concerned, it is effective enough to be worth the money and effort. A recent study by the Open Net Initiative (ONI), in conjunction with Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, reveals an increasingly sophisticated set of mechanisms through which Chinese internet users are prevented from accessing material deemed off-limits by the Chinese government. See: http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china.

Though government statements emphasize anti-pornography crackdowns, ONI found the primary focus of China's filtering system to be on political content. Public security organs and internet service providers employ thousands of people – nationwide, at multiple levels – as monitors and censors. Their job is to monitor everything posted online by ordinary Chinese people and to delete objectionable content.

The key to the filtering system, however, is automated technology – equipment and software courtesy of US companies – enabling China's service providers to enter hundreds of thousands of banned keywords and web addresses for automatic blocking.

And this automation is where the true power lies. The Cisco routers sold to China have the ability to block not only the main addresses for websites, but also specific sub-pages while leaving the rest of the site accessible. So, for instance, Chinese censors can allow access to most areas of Stanford University's website, http://www.stanford.edu, while blocking a sub-section within that domain, http://www.stanford.edu/group/falun/, a page for Stanford's followers of Falun Gong, a religious group banned in China. The same capability allows access to Google's main search page, while blocking specific search results based on banned keywords or web addresses.

Promotional material for the routers – which can deploy up to 750,000 filters – emphasizes the "granularity" of Cisco's filtering capabilities. This granularity of censorship enables China – to a larger degree than previously thought possible – to have its cake and eat it too. China has plugged its citizens into the internet connectivity they need to trade and communicate with the world. But at the same time, the picture of the world as seen by most Chinese internet users is heavily skewed in the regime's favor. Information showing the Chinese government in a positive light, or at least being responsive to admitted problems, is easily accessed. Critical information exists online, but it is kept at the level of specific complaints and relatively tame localized gripes. Only the most determined and tech-savvy internet users will succeed in accessing web pages about Chinese authorities' human rights abuses, or information relating to the Taiwan secession movement. On the other hand, information about Japanese atrocities, US abuses at Abu Ghraib, and belligerent vitriol supporting attacks on Taiwan if it declares independence are easily found in Chinese cyberspace. Thanks in part to this filtered view of the world, nationalism and xenophobia have found fertile breeding ground in Chinese cyberspace, while the pro-democracy movement has not.

China is clearly not sitting on its current success. It has undertaken a massive internet infrastructure upgrade with a US$100 million project called ChinaNet Next Carrying Network, or CN2. The project is big business for the companies awarded CN2 contracts: Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks, France's Alcatel, and China's only major player in the internet router market, Huawei Technologies. Over the next 12 months, new routers will be installed in 200 cities throughout China. The more state-of-the art the router, the more "granular" its filtering mechanisms become. Thus, experts predict the new network will enable the Chinese government to control and monitor online speech even more tightly.

Are US companies responsible when the Chinese government deploys their technology to stifle free speech on the internet? If the internet is going to change China in the long run anyway, how much does their complicity really matter?

A heated debate continues in the media and in cyberspace: Robert Scoble, a Microsoft employee who maintains a popular technology weblog, rose to his company's defense against a storm of criticism. "We must comply with the local laws if we want to do business there," he wrote, claiming to have encountered an "anti-free-speech" stance from students, professors, and officials in China.

Outraged Chinese bloggers called for a boycott of MSN Spaces. One of China's most famous bloggers called Microsoft "evil." A few days later Scoble backed down, admitting that he was wrong. Microsoft as a company, however, has stuck to the following statement: "MSN abides by the laws and regulations of each country in which it operates."

Human rights groups want to hold such companies responsible for facilitating restrictive government policies. Others point out that by hooking China up to the World Wide Web, Cisco has ultimately done much more to expand freedoms in China than to stifle them. Cisco spokespeople say they are merely selling technology to China and cannot control how it gets used. But the ONI's authors point out, "It is unlikely that Cisco would choose not to provide customer support or training for specific functionality of their products."

This spring, US Congressman Christopher Cox re-introduced the Global Internet Freedom Act, legislation that would support the development of technologies to foil attempts by non-democratic governments to "jam" or filter the internet. The proposed text declares, "The success of United States policy in support of freedom of speech, press, and association requires new initiatives to defeat totalitarian and authoritarian controls on news and information over the internet."

The Act says nothing, however, about the role played by American technology companies in the creation of these controls – passively or actively. According to ONI, it is difficult to believe that Cisco, Nortel Networks, Sun Microsystems, Juniper, and 3COM do not know how their products will be used by certain customers. There needs to be greater public examination of exactly how US technology companies are conducting their business. What do they know, and when do they know it? There should be consequences for companies found to be deliberately aiding censorship and political repression.

Rebecca MacKinnon is a Research Fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for internet and Society and is co-founder of Global Voices Online (GlobalVoicesOnline.org), a global citizens' media project. From 1998-2001 she was CNN's Beijing Bureau Chief and Correspondent and spent a total of 10 years working as a journalist in China and Taiwan. Her weblog is at RConversation.com.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5928



Rights:
© 2005 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Related Articles:
Internet Fans Flames of Chinese Nationalism
The Internet: China's Window to the World
China's "Peaceful Ascendancy"
Bloggers Cut Through Fog of War

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

In addition, it's unclear whether "illegal activity" would be limited to responding to denial-of-service attacks and botnets, or would also include detecting other illegal activities, such as online gambling, the distribution of "obscene" images of adults engaged in sexual acts, or selling drugs without a license.