Internet Censorship

New Worries Emerge About Internet Monitoring

Prospect of private-sector participation in the government's new Einstein 3 Internet monitoring system is raising concerns

June 4, 2010

FCW - Now that testing of the government’s latest Einstein 3 Internet monitoring and cyber defense system is under way, high-ranking officials have spoken again about trying to get selected companies to join agencies in using the controversial technology. But the prospect of private-sector participation in the government program, even if voluntary, has raised questions about privacy and the technology's supposed superiority over tools that companies might already be using.

Companies that operate critical infrastructure, such as power, transportation and financial networks, are the ones government officials want to get on board first, said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn. The Defense Department has created a task force comprised of industry and government information technology and defense interests to examine issues about sharing the Einstein technology, reported Amber Corrin in Defense Systems, a sister publication of Federal Computer Week.

The plan to include critical infrastructure operators in government cyber defense programs is a goal of National Security Presidential Directive 54, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. Much of the directive remains secret, but the White House released a declassified summary in March, including more detail about how Einstein 3 will work and the desired role of the private sector.

The latest version of the technology, named Einstein 2, monitors Internet and e-mail message traffic into federal agencies for signatures of known malicious activity and is in place in at least 11 of the 21 agencies that run their own networks, with more to follow. The system alerts security analysts when it detects threats, but doesn’t try to stop attacks.

Einstein 3 goes further in two ways: It can analyze traffic and messages more deeply, such as reading the contents of e-mail and other messages, and it can take measures to deflect attacks in real time, reported Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal last summer.

According to the summary of the security directive, Einstein 3 will also allow the Homeland Security Department, which runs the Einstein program, to share monitored information with the National Security Agency, though that data is not supposed to include message content. The recent combination of those three elements — reading e-mail messages, asking companies to participate in the monitoring program, and getting the NSA in the loop — has set off alarm bells about future uses of Einstein 3.

“If [Einstein 3] can perform deep packet inspection to prevent botnets from accessing certain Web pages, for instance, could it also be used to prevent a human from accessing illegal pornography, copyright-infringing music, or offshore gambling sites?” writes Declan McCullagh for Cnet.

Those particular examples make the right technical point, but they won’t stir much outrage from law-abiding citizens. However, a comment about this story from a reader identified as osamas_pjs asks how long before Einstein “is assigned to do keyword analysis and either prevent or track messages using language which the authorities wish to censor.”

Other questions surround the willingness of companies to participate in the program. Competitive concerns may make some firms reluctant to share information about breaches that might put them at a commercial disadvantage. And from a technical standpoint, some observers point out that the use of Einstein 3-style intrusion prevention tools is already mature in private industry, so it's not clear what new benefits the government technology will offer.

FCC’s Stealth Plan to Censor Internet Content

June 20, 2010

Infowars.com - In order to control the internet and do so without much notice, the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme. Under the fallacious rubric of “consumer protection,” the FCC is calling for the regulation of television and internet broadband.

Kelly William Cobb, writing for Americans for Tax Reform, says “the FCC would begin regulating Internet access for the first time under a completely new regulatory scheme (even though they lack the authority to create it). Meanwhile, the FCC would push regulations – cloaked in the heart-warming language of competition and innovation – mandating that your cable box (known as a set-top box) become a ‘broadband gateway device’ controlling access to your Internet, TV, and phone. The FCC has already started looking at set-top box regulations in their National Broadband Plan.”

On top of this, it would open the door for the FCC to begin monitoring or censoring content on the Internet (in addition to your TV), something Free Press and other progressives, as well as the White House regulatory czar advocate. The Songwriters Guild of America has a great op-ed on why government censorship is entirely possible if the Internet becomes regulated. (Emphasis added.)

Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves.

“Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Cobb.

The FCC has controlled television content for decades. If you want to know what the heavy hand of government will do to internet content think of the absurd Janet Jackson nipple incident and the government’s response.

The government wants to make sure the flow of information is safe for consumption by the plebs. Broadcast and cable television do not offer an alternative to news and information provided by the corporate media. The FCC plan and government oversight of content would effectively kill off alternative news, information, and commentary.

If the FCC gets its way Obama will not need a “kill switch” installed in the Oval Office. The internet will ultimately become a pale reflection of corporate-dominated television where there are hundreds of channels and nothing on — that is nothing that challenges the government and offers an alternative to the corporate media.

Lieberman: China Can Shut Down the Internet, Why Can’t We?

June 21, 2010

Prison Planet.com - Senator Joe Lieberman, co-author of a bill that would give President Obama a ‘kill switch’ to shut down parts of the Internet, attempted to reassure CNN viewers yesterday that concerns about the government regulating free speech on the web were overblown, but he only stoked more alarm by citing China, a country that censors all online dissent against the state, as the model to which American should compare itself.

During an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Lieberman characterized concerns that his 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF) legislation represents an attempt to hand Obama “absolute power” over the Internet as “total misinformation,” adding that people were “intentionally peddling misinformation.”

Lieberman again invoked “cybersecurity” as the motivation behind the bill and tried to assuage the worries of critics.

“So I say to my friends on the Internet, relax. Take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country,” said the Senator.

However, Lieberman’s choice of comparison in justifying the necessity of the bill will only serve to heighten concerns that the government is going after free speech.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.

The Senator’s reference to China is a telling revelation of what the cybersecurity agenda is really all about. China’s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with “war” and everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.

Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse and atrocities. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.

Major websites like Twitter, Google and You Tube have also been shut down either temporarily or permanently by Chinese authorities.

News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments. This abolition of anonymity is used to chill free speech in that it prevents the user from engaging in criticism of the state for fear that they would be tracked down by authorities.

Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a “blacklist” of banned websites by instituting a “whitelist” of allowed websites, a move that “could potentially place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers.” Websites not pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all Internet users, meaning “millions of completely innocuous sites” would be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or organization making the application has a history of or is likely to engage in dissent against the state.

President Obama himself has criticized Chinese Internet censorship as a hindrance to the free flow of information and allowing citizens to hold their governments accountable, and yet Lieberman wants to hand Obama similar powers.

Given the nature of Chinese Internet regulation, with has nothing to do with “war” as Lieberman claims and everything to do with political censorship and covering up information about state oppression, we should be alarmed that the Senator wants to see America move in the same direction.

The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

In addition, the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation.

Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves.

“Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted "Internet 2" system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

Lieberman’s argument that the U.S. government should be handed the same power to regulate the Internet currently exercised by Chinese authorities only serves to confirm that the true agenda behind the Obama ‘kill switch’ legislation is to launch a war, not against foreign hackers, but against the free speech of the American people.

Watch the CNN clip below.

Bill Would Put DHS in Charge of All Civilian Computer Networks

June 10, 2010

NationalTerrorAlert.com - New legislation expected to be introduced today would give the Homeland Security Department broad new authorities and powers over federal civilian networks.

The bill, however, does not include a “kill switch” for private sector networks, as widely reported previously.

The legislation, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tom Carper (D-Del.), would move the responsibility of civilian agency cybersecurity to DHS from the Office of Management and Budget, according to a summary of the bill obtained by Federal News Radio.

The responsibility to develop, oversee and enforce IT security throughout the federal government would fall to a new office in DHS, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications. A director confirmed by the Senate would lead the NCCC.

Can Obama Shut Down the Internet?

June 18, 2010

The Daily Beast - A new bill rocketing through Congress would give the president sweeping powers to police the Web for national-security reasons. Could this be a way to block WikiLeaks?

Is cyberspace about to get censored?

Confronting threats ranging from Chinese superhackers to the release of secret documents on WikiLeaks and other whistleblowing websites, the Obama administration may be on the verge of assuming broad new powers to regulate the Internet on national-security grounds.

The powers are granted to the White House under a bipartisan bill that was introduced in the Senate only last week but is already moving quickly through Congress toward passage. The legislation has generated considerable buzz on tech blogs—but drawn little notice so far by major news organizations.

“The way it seems to be worded, the bill could easily represent a threat to free speech,” said Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The bill would grant President Obama the power to declare a “national cyber-emergency” at his discretion and force private companies tied to the Web, including Internet service providers and search engines, to take action in response—moves that could include limiting or even cutting off their connections to the World Wide Web for up to 30 days.

While the bill’s sponsors say it is intended to create a shield to defend the United States and its largest companies from the growing threat of cyberattacks, civil-liberties activists tell The Daily Beast they fear the bill could give the White House the ability to effectively shut down portions of the Internet for reasons that could prove to be politically inspired.

“We have seen through recent history that in an emergency, the Executive Branch will interpret grants of power very broadly,” said Gregory Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that promotes Internet freedom. He said the bill, which he described as moving “at lightning speed in congressional terms,” was too loosely worded in its definition of which companies would be regulated and what they would be required to do in an emergency.

Wayne Crews, vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-enterprise think tank, said he believed the bill was so broadly worded that it might even allow the White House to take aim at whistleblowing websites that were believed to pose a national-security threat, such as WikiLeaks, in the guise of a “cyber-emergency.”

“That would be a concern of mine,” Crews tells The Daily Beast. “The way it seems to be worded, the bill could easily represent a threat to free speech.”

WikiLeaks, which is nominally based in Sweden and promotes itself as a global resource for whistleblowers, announced this week that it is preparing to post a classified Pentagon video depicting an American airstrike in Afghanistan last year that left as many as 140 people dead, most of them children and teenagers.

The Protecting Cyberspace Act was introduced last week by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the panel’s ranking Republican. Counterparts in the House Homeland Security Committee have endorsed identical legislation, meaning that a final bill could be adopted by the full Congress within weeks. The White House has not taken a stand on the legislation so far ...