Meet your new Big Brother - Mr Obama

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

Cybersecurity Plan to Involve NSA, Telecoms

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.

But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the officials said, because of uncertainty about whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency's involvement in warrantless wiretapping during George W. Bush's presidency would draw controversy. Each time a private citizen visited a "dot-gov" Web site or sent an e-mail to a civilian government employee, that action would be screened for potential harm to the network.

"We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones, that NSA has. But . . . they will be guided, led and in a sense directed by the people we have at the Department of Homeland Security," the department's secretary, Janet Napolitano, told reporters in a discussion about cybersecurity efforts.

Under a classified pilot program approved during the Bush administration, NSA data and hardware would be used to protect the networks of some civilian government agencies. Part of an initiative known as Einstein 3, the plan called for telecommunications companies to route the Internet traffic of civilian agencies through a monitoring box that would search for and block computer codes designed to penetrate or otherwise compromise networks.
ad_icon

AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications firm, was the Bush administration's choice to participate in the test, which has been delayed for months as the Obama administration determines what elements to preserve, former government officials said. The pilot program was to have begun in February.

"To be clear, Einstein 3 development is proceeding," DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said. "We are moving forward in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties."

AT&T officials declined to comment.

A DHS official said the delay occurred because the original timeline "did not take into account all that was required to ensure the exercise would provide the data needed."

The program is the most controversial element of the $17 billion cybersecurity initiative the Bush administration started in January 2008. Einstein 3 is crucial, advocates say, in an era in which hackers have compromised computer systems at the Commerce and State departments and have taken military jet data from a defense contractor.

The NSA declined to comment on Einstein 3, but a spokeswoman said the agency would help DHS in "any way possible, including technical support," as it seeks to protect government networks.

The internal controversy reflects the central tension in the debate over how best to defend the nation's mostly private system of computer networks. The techniques that work best, experts say, require the automated scrutiny of e-mail and other electronic communications content -- something that commercial providers already do.

Proponents of involving the government said such efforts should harness the NSA's resources, especially its database of computer codes, or signatures, that have been linked to cyberattacks or known adversaries. The NSA has compiled the cache by, for example, electronically observing hackers trying to gain access to U.S. military systems, the officials said.

"That's the secret sauce," one official said. "It's the stuff they have that the private sector doesn't."

But it is also the prospect of NSA involvement in cybersecurity that fuels concerns about unwarranted government snooping into private communication.

"The bitter battles over privacy and NSA's role in domestic wiretapping hang over cybersecurity like a toxic cloud," said Stewart A. Baker, who was assistant secretary of homeland security under Bush.

AT&T was sued over its role in aiding the Bush-era counterterrorism program to intercept Americans' e-mails and phone calls without a warrant. It is seeking legal assurance that it will not be sued for participating in the pilot program. That legal certification has been held up for several months as DHS prepares a contract, several current and former officials said.

Einstein's promise, they said, is that it can more effectively detect malicious activity and disable intrusions before harm is done to civilian government networks.

"Intrusion detection is like a cop with a radar gun on a highway who catches you speeding or drunk and phones ahead to somebody at the other end," Michael Chertoff, former homeland security secretary, said in a recent interview. "Einstein 3 is a cop who actually arrests you and pulls you off the road when he sees you driving drunk."

The pilot program has two goals. The first is to prove that the telecommunications firm can route only traffic destined for federal civilian agencies through the monitoring system. The second is to test whether the technology can work effectively on civilian government networks. The sensor box would scan e-mail messages and other content just before they enter the civilian agency networks.
ad_icon

The classified NSA system, known as Tutelage, has the ability to decide how to handle malicious intrusions -- to block them or watch them closely to better assess the threat, sources said. It is currently used to defend military networks.

The database for the program would also contain feeds from commercial firms and DHS's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, administration officials said.

"We're looking for malicious content, not a love note to someone with a dot-gov e-mail address," a senior Bush administration official said. "What we're interested in is finding the code, the thing that will do the network harm, not reading the e-mail itself."

Ari Schwartz, a vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, was among a group of privacy advocates given a classified briefing in March on the Einstein program. The advocates wanted to ensure that officials had a plan to protect privacy and civil liberties, including shielding such personally identifying data as Internet protocol addresses.

"We came away saying they have a lot of work in front of them to get this done right," Schwartz said. "We're looking forward to their next steps."

Bush administration lawyers determined last year that DHS had the legal authority to conduct the Einstein program, and could do so in compliance with existing wiretap and privacy laws, as long as appropriate policies were in place.

Last fall, plans for the pilot were proceeding, former officials said. But in the Bush administration's final weeks, AT&T lawyers raised concerns about legal liability, they said. Then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey was willing to give AT&T written assurance that it would bear no liability for participating in the program, but both AT&T and the Justice Department agreed that the new administration should issue the certification, they said.

"They just wanted to make sure the certification would not be reversed by the next administration," a Bush administration official said.

In hindsight, Baker said, the Bush White House's decision to classify so much of its initiative was a mistake.

"It meant that the problem was not well understood," said Baker, who was NSA general counsel in the Clinton administration. "The solution was veiled in secrecy in a way that allowed people outside to be suspicious, so anybody who mistrusted the intelligence community could just assume that it was because they were doing something that they shouldn't be doing."
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs.

Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy.

Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

Cybersecurity Plan to Involve NSA, Telecoms

The more invasion the better. :thumbsup:
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,012
9,117
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

You would hope that the leader of a government entity would work to neuter himself? They serve themselves, not the people. They work to preserve and expand their power, not to diminish it.

The people are the checks and balances in this nation, not the President. Not anyone at the top of power. Not any incumbent or leader of an incumbent party. It comes down to us and we have done nothing. We keep voting for our two incumbent parties. We are the ones preserving these abuses of power, and people like Obama are nothing more than a manifestation of this illness.

We?re getting EXACTLY what we?ve been fighting for. At least most of us anyway, some were intelligent enough to vote third party. Things will only change when the majority is so smart. If you?re tried of bending over, then stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Stop voting for our two incumbent parties.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If you?re tired of bending over, then stop voting for Democrats and Republicans.

Stop voting for our two incumbent parties.

The only one I know of that has gotten voted in outside of the two parties was Jesse Ventura.

What made Minnesotans do that then?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If you?re tired of bending over, then stop voting for Democrats and Republicans.

Stop voting for our two incumbent parties.

The only one I know of that has gotten voted in outside of the two parties was Jesse Ventura.

What made Minnesotans do that then?

Prior to his governership he was a mayor too. But he won primarily on the platform of returning MN tax surplus back to the people in the way of a refund. His mantra was, if we're running a surplus of YOUR money, you should get it back.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Prior to his governership he was a mayor too. But he won primarily on the platform of returning MN tax surplus back to the people in the way of a refund. His mantra was, if we're running a surplus of YOUR money, you should get it back.

Did MN have any debt? I could think of a better way to use that money: call as many high interest bonds as possible (if they're callable).
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
And if Obama did nothing, and Chinese hackers stole defense secrets, shut down infrastructure, or sent spurious orders to military units during an international crisis, you whiners would be saying Obama has sold out the US to his Chinese commie brethren.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,899
63
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

Please show me where you expressed such outrage over anything that Bush did.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I'm sure we'll see a few lefties offer us a meek "disappointing" while they're bent over. But somehow I doubt we'll see any macros or .txt's of yet another "change" not delivered on from the usual hypocrites.

Issues like this only go to show that the majority of the lefties will accept any erosion of their rights and incomes (Obama has endorsed several regressive tax generating initiatives already just 6 months in) in the hope that Obama will tax the rich and send Bush to jail. Keep the dreams alive lefties!
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

Please show me where you expressed such outrage over anything that Bush did.


Ah, yes, the typical Obamabot response in a thread that is negative towards Obama. Dont comment on the news, comment on the poster.


Does that diversion tactic actually work with some people?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: OCguy
Does that diversion tactic actually work with some people?


It think it works with lefties as history shows they are easily tricked. First Bush tricked the lefties in congress into the keys to the war machine, now Obama tricks them to believe in "hope and change".

Anyone interested in a bridge?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

Please show me where you expressed such outrage over anything that Bush did.


Ah, yes, the typical Obamabot response in a thread that is negative towards Obama. Dont comment on the news, comment on the poster.


Does that diversion tactic actually work with some people?

Yes, other Obamabots.

BU BU BU BU BUT BUSH!
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

Please show me where you expressed such outrage over anything that Bush did.

I often railed against Bush for his domestic spying/UNPatriot Act. You will pay pal $1000 if I find you a thread where I did so? I didnt think you would.

Here ya go Mr Open Mind:

Topic: Democratic Concessions Are Expected on Wiretapping Posted: 10/09/2007 09:33 AM Subject: Democratic Concessions Are Expected on Wiretapping

IMHO thr Patriot Act is in the top 3 pieces of shit legislation ever passed. Myself being a conservative, if a left wing looney like Gore or Dean actually had a plan to dismantle it, I meana RELAISTC plan not unlike most of the Dems plans for ruling the world, I would campaign for them 24x7.

Topic: It's only torture if you inhale? Posted: 01/14/2008 05:53 PM Subject: It's only torture if you inhale?

The Patriot Act? G-damn I hate that piece of legislation and all it encompasses.

Theres a couple. Find another tree to piss on.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,362
1,219
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: OCguy
Does that diversion tactic actually work with some people?


It think it works with lefties as history shows they are easily tricked. First Bush tricked the lefties in congress into the keys to the war machine, now Obama tricks them to believe in "hope and change".

Anyone interested in a bridge?

The only people tricked were average Americans.

Congress knows what is going on and lets the Prez do the dirty work.

Why can't they design the government networks to be a little more secure? Oh yeah, then they couldn't have an excuse to filter through everyone's internet traffic then.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
I think I must be the only one to post so far who knows anything about networks and net security. This isn't the big brother wire-tapping story that all of you are construing it to be - at the bottom of the article it even says that classifying these details had been a mistake because they led to people misunderstanding the technology at play here. I administer a large private network and use the same tactics they're describing to detect attacks via protocol signatures and shut them down. Providers are already doing this, as stated in the article. The difference as I read it is that now the NSA will be supplying their far more advanced protocol signatures to detect malicious traffic on only those packets destined to government addresses. So in other words, they're inspecting traffic that is destined for government addresses within the private provider network rather than at all of the various government internet peering points. It's the same traffic, but just a few hops upstream. So long as this isn't expanded to inspect traffic between private networks (again, the providers already do this independently) then I don't see a major deviation in government invasion of privacy.

Sorry to intrude on the obama bashing session with some analysis - please carry on.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I'm glad they are building it there in one location. That way it will be easy to tell if your traffic is being monitored. A more scary idea is if they built lots of little places all over the USA.
Now if they start building antenna arrays like this in your neighborhood it is time to get worried:)
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam1.html
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
I think I must be the only one to post so far who knows anything about networks and net security. This isn't the big brother wire-tapping story that all of you are construing it to be - at the bottom of the article it even says that classifying these details had been a mistake because they led to people misunderstanding the technology at play here. I administer a large private network and use the same tactics they're describing to detect attacks via protocol signatures and shut them down. Providers are already doing this, as stated in the article. The difference as I read it is that now the NSA will be supplying their far more advanced protocol signatures to detect malicious traffic on only those packets destined to government addresses. So in other words, they're inspecting traffic that is destined for government addresses within the private provider network rather than at all of the various government internet peering points. It's the same traffic, but just a few hops upstream. So long as this isn't expanded to inspect traffic between private networks (again, the providers already do this independently) then I don't see a major deviation in government invasion of privacy.

Sorry to intrude on the obama bashing session with some analysis - please carry on.

I understand this. But you cant dismiss Mark Klein's testimony about Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, either. Im sure youre aware of that?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm glad they are building it there in one location. That way it will be easy to tell if your traffic is being monitored. A more scary idea is if they built lots of little places all over the USA.
Now if they start building antenna arrays like this in your neighborhood it is time to get worried:)
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam1.html

LOL HAARP rocks! I learned about it on the Art Bell show about 10-15 years ago lol
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I really was hoping Obama would dismantle alot of Bush's domestic spy programs. But no. While many here want to see Bush tried for war crimes (what a joke) I want to see Bush tried for his domestic spy policies. Now it seems Obama is continuing the invasion of our privacy, and furthering the erosion of said privacy. Makes me fucking SICK. Heres a link about the NSA's new project in Utah that was just signed by Obama...a 200 acre site (3 times the size of Utah's capital campus) that will use at least 65 megawatts of power (about the same amount used by every home in Salt Lake City combined).

You would hope that the leader of a government entity would work to neuter himself? They serve themselves, not the people. They work to preserve and expand their power, not to diminish it.

The people are the checks and balances in this nation, not the President. Not anyone at the top of power. Not any incumbent or leader of an incumbent party. It comes down to us and we have done nothing. We keep voting for our two incumbent parties. We are the ones preserving these abuses of power, and people like Obama are nothing more than a manifestation of this illness.

We?re getting EXACTLY what we?ve been fighting for. At least most of us anyway, some were intelligent enough to vote third party. Things will only change when the majority is so smart. If you?re tried of bending over, then stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Stop voting for our two incumbent parties.

i agree. NO president is going to give up any power that has been gained. Anyone that thought Obama was any diffrent then any other president is nieve.

hopefully this gets shot down.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
I think I must be the only one to post so far who knows anything about networks and net security. This isn't the big brother wire-tapping story that all of you are construing it to be - at the bottom of the article it even says that classifying these details had been a mistake because they led to people misunderstanding the technology at play here. I administer a large private network and use the same tactics they're describing to detect attacks via protocol signatures and shut them down. Providers are already doing this, as stated in the article. The difference as I read it is that now the NSA will be supplying their far more advanced protocol signatures to detect malicious traffic on only those packets destined to government addresses. So in other words, they're inspecting traffic that is destined for government addresses within the private provider network rather than at all of the various government internet peering points. It's the same traffic, but just a few hops upstream. So long as this isn't expanded to inspect traffic between private networks (again, the providers already do this independently) then I don't see a major deviation in government invasion of privacy.

Sorry to intrude on the obama bashing session with some analysis - please carry on.

I understand this. But you cant dismiss Mark Klein's testimony about Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, either. Im sure youre aware of that?

I wasn't directly aware of that until I just googled it. It is outrageous of course, as is about a million other things that your government has done over the last couple of hundred years. The government will always have the ability to do terrible things to its citizens and abuse its power in myriad ways. The 'check' (like someone stated earlier) is the people - when the people know what is going on, they can stand up against oppression and abuse of power and make a change. The key here is that the people need to know. What Obama has pledged (and remains to be seen) is a level of transparency and oversight in government that is relatively unprecedented, and will allow the people to know with some degree of certainty that this power is not being abused.

I think this information having been declassified at this point lends credence to the notion that we will have the transparency and oversight in government that has been promised. If that turns out not to be the case, then I (like about 100 million others) will feel that a promise has been reneged upon and will vote accordingly.

I haven't seen anything to this point that leads me to believe that this is definitely going to be a continuation of Bush or Nixon-style wiretapping abuse.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Obama seems to face a choice between the huge political threat of any attack or act happening that could be blamed if he curtails the spying programs, and the civil rights of Americans, which would need him to get Americans to accept a bit more risk in exchange for more liberty.

Unfortunately, it appears he's weighing the political risks more heavily.

More unfortunately, the right probably COULD devastate him if he did curtail the activities, and there was an attack.

Is that where our public has weakened our nation to - the choice between leaders who will enthusiastically and aggressively curtail libertieis, and those who might do so reluctantly?

With not doing so simply not a 'feasible option' politically because the advocates for surveillance have so effectively made not doing so very risky?

In case it isn't clear - I and more liberals it seems to me are disappointed in Obama on this. But I'm disappointed in the public as well on this. Where's the love of liberties?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Obama seems to face a choice between the huge political threat of any attack or act happening that could be blamed if he curtails the spying programs, and the civil rights of Americans, which would need him to get Americans to accept a bit more risk in exchange for more liberty.

Unfortunately, it appears he's weighing the political risks more heavily.

More unfortunately, the right probably COULD devastate him if he did curtail the activities, and there was an attack.

Is that where our public has weakened our nation to - the choice between leaders who will enthusiastically and aggressively curtail libertieis, and those who might do so reluctantly?

With not doing so simply not a 'feasible option' politically because the advocates for surveillance have so effectively made not doing so very risky?

In case it isn't clear - I and more liberals it seems to me are disappointed in Obama on this. But I'm disappointed in the public as well on this. Where's the love of liberties?

FEAR FEAR FEAR!

Oh wait....
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1

FEAR FEAR FEAR!

Oh wait....

Don't try to push the comparison further than is justified. Obama's not the fear-mongerer the Bush administration was by any means.