November 5, 2007: This website is an archive of the former website, traprockpeace.org, which was created 10 years ago by Charles Jenks. It became one of the most populace sites in the US, and an important resource on the antiwar movement, student activism, 'depleted' uranium and other topics. Jenks authored virtually all of its web pages and multimedia content (photographs, audio, video, and pdf files. As the author and registered owner of that site, his purpose here is to preserve an important slice of the history of the grassroots peace movement in the US over the past decade. He is maintaining this historical archive as a service to the greater peace movement, and to the many friends of Traprock Peace Center. Blogs have been consolidated and the calendar has been archived for security reasons; all other links remain the same, and virtually all blog content remains intact.THIS SITE NO LONGER REFLECTS THE CURRENT AND ONGOING WORK OF TRAPROCK PEACE CENTER, which has reorganized its board and moved to Greenfield, Mass. To contact Traprock Peace Center, call 413-773-7427 or visit its site. Charles Jenks is posting new material to PeaceJournal.org, a multimedia blog and resource center.
The following article is reprinted from New York Times as a "fair use" for educational purposes. Copies of this article may be available from the source on-line or via mail. This website has no authority to grant permission to reprint this article. At times we copy an article, with attribution, rather than link directly to the source as media links are often unstable, e.g. the article moves from the source's linked page to an archive, thereby creating a bad link on this site.
Bush to propose requiring ISPs to monitor Net
By John Markoff and John Schwartz
New York Times, December 20, 2002
The Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users.
The proposal is part of a final version of a report, ``The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,'' set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The president's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards such as viruses but also from terrorist attack.
Ultimately, the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security.
Such a proposal, which would be subject to congressional and regulatory approval, would be a technical challenge because the Internet has thousands of independent service providers, from garage operations to giant corporations such as America Online, AT&T, Microsoft and WorldCom.
The report does not detail specific operational requirements, locations for the centralized system or costs, people who were briefed on the document said.
While the proposal is meant to gauge the overall state of the worldwide network, some officials of Internet companies who have been briefed on the proposal say they worry that such a system could be used to cross the indistinct border between broad monitoring and wiretap.
Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who represents some of the nation's largest ISPs, said, ``Internet service providers are concerned about the privacy implications of this as well as liability,'' since providing access to live feeds of network activity could be interpreted as a wiretap or as the ``pen register'' and ``trap and trace'' systems used on phones without a judicial order.
Baker said the issue would need to be resolved before the proposal could move forward.
Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the president's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said Thursday that the proposal, which includes a national network operations center, was still in flux. She said the proposed methods do not necessarily require gathering data that would allow monitoring at an individual user level.
But the need for a large-scale operations center is real, Olson said, because Internet service providers and security companies and other online companies only have a view of the part of the Internet that is under their control.
``We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture,'' she said. ``When something is happening, we don't know it's happening until it's too late.''
The government report was first released in draft form in September, and described the monitoring center, but it suggested it would likely be controlled by industry. The current draft sets the stage for the government to have a leadership role.
The new proposal is labeled in the report as an ``early-warning center'' that the board says is required to offer early detection of Internet-based attacks as well as defense against viruses and worms.
But Internet service providers argue that its data-monitoring functions could be used to track the activities of individuals using the network.
An official with a major data services company who has been briefed on several aspects of the government's plans said it was hard to see how such capabilities could be provided to government without the potential for real-time monitoring, even of individuals.
``Part of monitoring the Internet and doing real-time analysis is to be able to track incidents while they are occurring,'' the official said. The official compared the system to Carnivore, the Internet wiretap system used by the FBI, saying: ``Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely. But in fact, it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet.''
Page created November 25, 2002 by Charlie Jenks.