responder wrote:
>
> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
> there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>
> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
> all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass through US hubs
> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That includes all
> commercial, personal or political communications.
That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If that
is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they ever
done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
people in all the world?

They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of the
country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That is why
this kind of activity should and previously did need a warrant. Their
approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you but then I would
have to kill you". Well they are killing us.

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com

Barton L. Phillips wrote:

> responder wrote:
>>
>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>> there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
>> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>
>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>> all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass through US hubs
>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That includes all
>> commercial, personal or political communications.
> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If that
> is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they ever
> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
> people in all the world?
>
> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of the
> country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That is why
> this kind of activity should and previously did need a warrant. Their
> approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you but then I would
> have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>


....and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about helping
business get better bandwidth???

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Imhotep

imhotep wrote:
> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>
>> responder wrote:
>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>>> there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
>>> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>>
>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>>> all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass through US hubs
>>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That includes all
>>> commercial, personal or political communications.
>> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
>> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If that
>> is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
>> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they ever
>> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
>> people in all the world?
>>
>> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of the
>> country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That is why
>> this kind of activity should and previously did need a warrant. Their
>> approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you but then I would
>> have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>>
>
>
> ...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about helping
> business get better bandwidth???
>
> http://www.savetheinternet.com/
>
> Imhotep
Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread? What
am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was this
supposed to go with that thread?

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com

Barton L. Phillips wrote:

> imhotep wrote:
>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> responder wrote:
>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>>>> there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
>>>> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>>>
>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>>>> all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass through US
>>>> hubs
>>>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That includes
>>>> all commercial, personal or political communications.
>>> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
>>> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If that
>>> is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
>>> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they ever
>>> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
>>> people in all the world?
>>>
>>> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of the
>>> country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That is why
>>> this kind of activity should and previously did need a warrant. Their
>>> approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you but then I would
>>> have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about helping
>> business get better bandwidth???
>>
>> http://www.savetheinternet.com/
>>
>> Imhotep
> Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread? What
> am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was this
> supposed to go with that thread?
>

They are related as there is a covert attempt here in the US to monitor and
thus control the Internet. In some ways it is also linked to the illegal
(in my opinion anyway) wiretapping that is also going on. Also, it was
revealed that AT&T had been examining email for the US Gov about 6 months
ago. Also without a warrent. Then look at the fight Google had when the US
Gov wanted the searches from 1 Million people. And it was revealed that
Yahoo had been doing it for sometime. I ask you, why would you ask for 1
million random people?

If you look at the big picture here in the US there is a broad and far
reaching attempt to remove the anonymity of people on the Internet...as
well as monitor them...

Imhotep

it is far more board than one first thinks.

imhotep wrote:

> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>
>> imhotep wrote:
>>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>> responder wrote:
>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
>>>>> that there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
>>>>> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
>>>>> that all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass
>>>>> through US hubs
>>>>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That
>>>>> includes all commercial, personal or political communications.
>>>> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
>>>> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If
>>>> that is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
>>>> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they
>>>> ever
>>>> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
>>>> people in all the world?
>>>>
>>>> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of
>>>> the country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That
>>>> is why this kind of activity should and previously did need a
>>>> warrant. Their approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you
>>>> but then I would have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about helping
>>> business get better bandwidth???
>>>
>>> http://www.savetheinternet.com/
>>>
>>> Imhotep
>> Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread?
>> What am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was
>> this supposed to go with that thread?
>>
>>
> They are related as there is a covert attempt here in the US to monitor
> and thus control the Internet. In some ways it is also linked to the
> illegal (in my opinion anyway) wiretapping that is also going on. Also,
> it was revealed that AT&T had been examining email for the US Gov about
> 6 months ago. Also without a warrent. Then look at the fight Google had
> when the US Gov wanted the searches from 1 Million people. And it was
> revealed that Yahoo had been doing it for sometime. I ask you, why would
> you ask for 1 million random people?
>
> If you look at the big picture here in the US there is a broad and far
> reaching attempt to remove the anonymity of people on the Internet...as
> well as monitor them...
>
> Imhotep
>
> it is far more board than one first thinks.


As OP in this thread, I think you have gone off topic.

I agree with your net-neutral ideas. Many (who I know) do not. Your
off-topic comments in this thread do not advance any meaningful discussion
of the subject at hand. They actually detract from the focus of the
discussion.

Not to be unkind or mean in any way. But: If you cannot talk to the
subject at hand, then don't write at all.

....Hope to hear from you in a different thread soon.

responder wrote:
> As OP in this thread, I think you have gone off topic.
>
> I agree with your net-neutral ideas. Many (who I know) do not. Your
> off-topic comments in this thread do not advance any meaningful discussion
> of the subject at hand. They actually detract from the focus of the
> discussion.

As an OR (original reader) of this thread, I actually see a
connection between US "domestic" spying and net neutrality.
Specificly, if a spy wishes to gather information on the US
portion of the internet, then it would be best for the spy if
most of the traffic traversed the fewest number of network nodes
as possible. To the extent that a non-neutral net net reduces
the work of the spy, by funneling traffic through a handful of
super-ISPs, then that subthread is relevant. But, now that the
point has been made, let's do get back to the NSA wiretap issue
so that the NSA has something personal to read about. ;-)

--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.

responder wrote:

> imhotep wrote:
>
>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> imhotep wrote:
>>>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> responder wrote:
>>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
>>>>>> that there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
>>>>>> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
>>>>>> that all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass
>>>>>> through US hubs
>>>>>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That
>>>>>> includes all commercial, personal or political communications.
>>>>> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
>>>>> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If
>>>>> that is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
>>>>> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they
>>>>> ever
>>>>> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
>>>>> people in all the world?
>>>>>
>>>>> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of
>>>>> the country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That
>>>>> is why this kind of activity should and previously did need a
>>>>> warrant. Their approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you
>>>>> but then I would have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about helping
>>>> business get better bandwidth???
>>>>
>>>> http://www.savetheinternet.com/
>>>>
>>>> Imhotep
>>> Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread?
>>> What am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was
>>> this supposed to go with that thread?
>>>
>>>
>> They are related as there is a covert attempt here in the US to monitor
>> and thus control the Internet. In some ways it is also linked to the
>> illegal (in my opinion anyway) wiretapping that is also going on. Also,
>> it was revealed that AT&T had been examining email for the US Gov about
>> 6 months ago. Also without a warrent. Then look at the fight Google had
>> when the US Gov wanted the searches from 1 Million people. And it was
>> revealed that Yahoo had been doing it for sometime. I ask you, why would
>> you ask for 1 million random people?
>>
>> If you look at the big picture here in the US there is a broad and far
>> reaching attempt to remove the anonymity of people on the Internet...as
>> well as monitor them...
>>
>> Imhotep
>>
>> it is far more board than one first thinks.
>
>
> As OP in this thread, I think you have gone off topic.
>
> I agree with your net-neutral ideas. Many (who I know) do not. Your
> off-topic comments in this thread do not advance any meaningful discussion
> of the subject at hand. They actually detract from the focus of the
> discussion.
>
> Not to be unkind or mean in any way. But: If you cannot talk to the
> subject at hand, then don't write at all.
>
> ...Hope to hear from you in a different thread soon.


Again, I did not mean to derail your discussion. However, I do see a
connection (Illegal Wiretaps and Anti Net Neutrality). My point was to
*add* to your discussion not *subtract* from it...If you think I was
subtracting from it, then I apologize. It was not my intent...

Imhotep

imhotep wrote:
> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>
>> imhotep wrote:
>>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>> responder wrote:
>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>>>>> there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal and
>>>>> unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is that
>>>>> all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass through US
>>>>> hubs
>>>>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That includes
>>>>> all commercial, personal or political communications.
>>>> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
>>>> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If that
>>>> is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
>>>> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they ever
>>>> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
>>>> people in all the world?
>>>>
>>>> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of the
>>>> country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight. That is why
>>>> this kind of activity should and previously did need a warrant. Their
>>>> approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you but then I would
>>>> have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about helping
>>> business get better bandwidth???
>>>
>>> http://www.savetheinternet.com/
>>>
>>> Imhotep
>> Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread? What
>> am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was this
>> supposed to go with that thread?
>>
>
> They are related as there is a covert attempt here in the US to monitor and
> thus control the Internet. In some ways it is also linked to the illegal
> (in my opinion anyway) wiretapping that is also going on. Also, it was
> revealed that AT&T had been examining email for the US Gov about 6 months
> ago. Also without a warrent. Then look at the fight Google had when the US
> Gov wanted the searches from 1 Million people. And it was revealed that
> Yahoo had been doing it for sometime. I ask you, why would you ask for 1
> million random people?
>
> If you look at the big picture here in the US there is a broad and far
> reaching attempt to remove the anonymity of people on the Internet...as
> well as monitor them...
>
> Imhotep
>
> it is far more board than one first thinks.
>
>
>
>
Yes, with the additional relevant information above I see the
connection, however, the previous post left me a little confused.

I agree that the US administration is out of control, and changing my
country in ways that make me sick and afraid. I am glad that I am not
the only one disturbed.

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com

imhotep wrote:

> responder wrote:
>
>> imhotep wrote:
>>
>>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>> imhotep wrote:
>>>>> Barton L. Phillips wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> responder wrote:
>>>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
>>>>>>> that there is no oversight. The program has been judged illegal
>>>>>>> and unconstitutional and yet continues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even in this article, what is _not_ said, what is glossed over, is
>>>>>>> that all (_*all*_) communications within the US, or that pass
>>>>>>> through US hubs
>>>>>>> *might* be monitored, tapped, recorded, or *modified*. That
>>>>>>> includes all commercial, personal or political communications.
>>>>>> That is the really big problem, "no oversight". The government says
>>>>>> there can't be oversight because that would compromise security. If
>>>>>> that is not a catch 21 explanation I don't know what is. The Bush
>>>>>> administration is saying "trust me", and why shouldn't we have they
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> done anything to make us thing they are not the most trustworthy
>>>>>> people in all the world?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They say that the spying is only on information going in and out of
>>>>>> the country, but how is anyone to know if there is no oversight.
>>>>>> That is why this kind of activity should and previously did need a
>>>>>> warrant. Their approach is like the classic joke "I could tell you
>>>>>> but then I would have to kill you". Well they are killing us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...and your *REALLY* think anti Net Neutrality is really about
>>>>> helping business get better bandwidth???
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.savetheinternet.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Imhotep
>>>> Interesting web site, but what does it have to do with this thread?
>>>> What am I missing? There was another thread about "Net Neutrality" was
>>>> this supposed to go with that thread?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They are related as there is a covert attempt here in the US to monitor
>>> and thus control the Internet. In some ways it is also linked to the
>>> illegal (in my opinion anyway) wiretapping that is also going on. Also,
>>> it was revealed that AT&T had been examining email for the US Gov about
>>> 6 months ago. Also without a warrent. Then look at the fight Google had
>>> when the US Gov wanted the searches from 1 Million people. And it was
>>> revealed that Yahoo had been doing it for sometime. I ask you, why
>>> would you ask for 1 million random people?
>>>
>>> If you look at the big picture here in the US there is a broad and far
>>> reaching attempt to remove the anonymity of people on the Internet...as
>>> well as monitor them...
>>>
>>> Imhotep
>>>
>>> it is far more board than one first thinks.
>>
>>
>> As OP in this thread, I think you have gone off topic.
>>
>> I agree with your net-neutral ideas. Many (who I know) do not. Your
>> off-topic comments in this thread do not advance any meaningful
>> discussion of the subject at hand. They actually detract from the focus
>> of the discussion.
>>
>> Not to be unkind or mean in any way. But: If you cannot talk to the
>> subject at hand, then don't write at all.
>>
>> ...Hope to hear from you in a different thread soon.
>
>
> Again, I did not mean to derail your discussion. However, I do see a
> connection (Illegal Wiretaps and Anti Net Neutrality). My point was to
> *add* to your discussion not *subtract* from it...If you think I was
> subtracting from it, then I apologize. It was not my intent...
>
> Imhotep

I guess we are in sync after all. And especially with the benefit of
comments from the other gentlemen, I am starting to see the larger
connections. Thank you (all) for taking the time to explain this so
kindly.

The unsupervised (warrantless) access to private communications has
immense negative repercussions, and little or no positive benefits that
have been shown or can be expected. And there are certainly simpler and
more obvious steps that could enhance collective security, without
trashing our entire system of constitutionally guaranteed rights. (Though
some might disagree, providing civil legal mechanisms to counter the
growth of botnets, without expecting ISP's to be enforcers, would help a
lot, IMO.) There are many possible examples that could be put forward if
any in the extant power structure were in a position to act and wanted to
listen. If the US had had any kind of energy policy other than to make
the oil companies richer and richer, we would now also be in a far less
vulnerable position. In a large sense, these are all connected because
they are the result of the intentional mismanagement of our government by
this administration.

At least three courts have recently found against this administration's
policies. (There was a ruling against so-called "Military Tribunals" for
"enemy combatants". There was a ruling in San Francisco, based in part on
the President's own public statements against invocation of "State
Secrets" in the EFF lawsuit v. NSA and AT&T. There was a ruling in
Detroit that flatly declared the program illegal and unconstitutional.)
Yet the program continues under a stay until appeals are exhausted. And
the administration has chosen the slowest and most lengthly route of
appeal, obviously because they do not want expedited judicial review.
That last point is exactly the center of objection to the entire (what we
know) NSA wiretap issue.

To wit: The administration had legal tools and mechanisms available to do
all these things legally and constitutionally, but chose to not do them in
a legal, constitutionally correct way. If they felt they needed
additional legal leeway, they were free to request additional statutory
authorization from their own, Republican controlled Congress, but chose to
not do that. Now that they have been judged to be acting in violation of
law and of the Constitution, they have chosen the slowest, longest route
to eventual consideration by the US Supreme Court. That is because they
do not want judicial or any other review so long as they can maintain the
status quo.

The FISA supervision, which is secret and apparently very permissive, was
written into law to address wiretap abuses by a previous US Presidential
administration. Those abuses included wiretapping for political purposes
and for monitoring "enemies" such as nonviolent political dissenters.
That was the purpose of the FISA statute and secret court that this
administration chose to ignore, and that this President then chose to
publicly lie about.

If you do a few traceroutes from or to almost anywhere in the US, your
results will vary, of course. But chances are you will see many nodes
that belong to AT&T, and are clearly named as such. Any one of those can
split a signal and send it to NSA. That is exactly what is alleged in the
EFF suit in SF v. AT&T and NSA that Judge Walker ruled can proceed,
ruling against the administration's argument of State Secrets. Judge
Walker will be hearing consolidated cases from across the US.

This is difficult to follow, and I might not have this right, but Judge
Taylor in Detroit made the ruling and ordered a halt to the NSA wiretap
program. The order was stayed pending appeal. And the article linked
reports that the administration has again made the State Secrets argument
that appears to me to be the same one initially rejected both by her and
by Judge Walker in SF. Perhaps it is not identical (?). Also another
"overly broad" argument. The papers were filed Friday before a holiday
weekend. That is the time this administration releases news that they do
not want seen.

There are oral arguments scheduled on the appeal on Thursday, September 7,
and I am not sure if that is in front of Judge Taylor or another. That is
in the ACLU suit, and their site may have more information (aclu.org), or
search Google News.

There is no reasonable expectation of information security possible in
this picture. There is no reasonable basis on which to base any trust in
the integrity of this administration or this President. There is every
reason to suspect that the NSA wiretap program was intended and conceived
from the start as an extra-legal (illegal) operation and remains so today
with the full knowledge and support of the President. There is every
reason to expect that this President and this administration will stop at
nothing to maintain and expand their power. The interests of the citizens
and of the country are of no concern to these people.

Thanks again for writing.

New news of legal action in this issue:

Rights group asks judge to stop wiretap program

By Christine Kearney Tue Sep 5, 8:11 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/...vesdropping_dc

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

(this is not yet on the ccr-ny site)

The original link in this thread was,

> http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...609020366/1022

responder wrote lots of good observations about
unconstitional and illegal NSA wiretaping which is one form of
computer insecurity.

One thing that the US administration has been very lax in is
improving cyber security. With so much relying on a working
Internet, we need to keep it working. What can we do, as
people who presumably care about this stuff enough to read this
newsgroup? I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for
someone else to do it for us. Maybe they don't even want to do
it for us? If the Internet were more hardened against cyber
terrorists, maybe the same hardening would lessen their ability
to do their own spying?

So, what can WE do?

--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.

So, what can we do to keep our information out of the hands of anyone,
including the gov't, that we don't trust with that knowledge? Now that
we know that they're going to spy on us, or at least someone is going to
spy on us.

--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.

Kevin the Drummer wrote:

> responder wrote lots of good observations about
> unconstitional and illegal NSA wiretaping which is one form of computer
> insecurity.
>
> One thing that the US administration has been very lax in is improving
> cyber security. With so much relying on a working Internet, we need to
> keep it working. What can we do, as people who presumably care about
> this stuff enough to read this newsgroup? I don't think we have the
> luxury of waiting for someone else to do it for us. Maybe they don't
> even want to do it for us? If the Internet were more hardened against
> cyber terrorists, maybe the same hardening would lessen their ability to
> do their own spying?
>
> So, what can WE do?

I'm glad you asked. Thanks for your kindness and support. I approve of
the subject change, although not all software handles that well (mine is
OK with it.) I will try to answer both your questions as well as I can,
but only wish I could do better. Whether any particular illicit activity
is most correctly called criminal or terrorist, the results inevitably
lead to increased costs for everyone and for everything, and possibly
damages other than financial.

1. ("Preaching to the choir" here...) Keep your own systems in order,
updated and secure so you don't become part of the problem.

2. Use a (firewall) log aggregation service like dshield or mynetwatchman.
It takes most of the work out of monitoring your own logs, costs nothing
and helps systemetize reporting of the most seriously offensive sources.
The aggregators, particularly at SANS watch the reports and often detect
new threats very quickly, and publish warnings and collect details from
and for all readers. F-secure also keeps a similarly informative blog.
These three all seem trustworthy and diligent about keeping private
information private.

Those two suggestions are easy to make because they don't involve
advocating anyone take any real new independent action, and so are fairly
safe. The following are more difficult to say well, and there is always a
danger that someone will misconstrue and do something unintended or
counterproductive. So please be circumspect.

3. Advocate (gently) for computer and network security, to people you know
personally, especially if they are doing unsafe things. Children and
young people are often among the most computer literate people. But they
also need to learn from somewhere. If you can give a simple suggestion or
two to a receptive child, along with a simple explanation of what and why
it helps, you can sometimes get remarkably good results for very small
effort. Parents also often need and appreciate a small, kind suggestion
or two. If people are not receptive, don't pursue it.

4. This is potentially more controversial and more subject to going wrong.
I'll try to say it as simply as I can.

I think that there needs to be a generally accepted and acceptable
standard that if a connected computer is compromised, it should be
disconnected. We do not have that today. I see the primary reason for
that failure as resulting directly from a system where the ISP is the
enforcer. A conflict of interest arises because the most diligent
application of that standard will at best antagonize many customers, and
might result in loss of customer (and revenue) base.

In order for such a system to be uniformly applied in a fundamentally
non-punitive and non-disruptive way, the enforcer role must be essentially
separated from from the discretion of the ISP. Good planning and careful
attention to detail is indispensable. But it needs to be a statutory
standard to be able to work.

I expect that technical issues would be minimal, initial set up costs
relatively low, and initial and ongoing costs to be reimbursed to the
government authority through non-punitive fees or fines by those requiring
help or attention. I do not foresee any significant disruption to any
currently operating business or other type of organization, except of
course for the user who is temporarily disconnected. Even that
disconnection time could be minimized or eliminated when the machine is
clean. Everyone who is currently working in related efforts could
continue as before, except they would cooperate with a coordinating
authority.

Detection of compromised machines could be done the same way and by the
same people who now do so: namely log aggregation services. Additional or
alternate strategies could also be used, but would not seem to be
necessary.

A "Standard Operating Procedure" would be developed to specify what
actions would happen and when they would happen. This procedure would be
drafted with the input of all users and providers. This SOP would then be
enforced by the statute. And the statute could authorize a procedure for
modification of the SOP.

The essential elements are:
(1) the ISP is notified (as now) of a compromised machine and then
notifies the customer _and_ the coordinating authority. The customer's
identity would need to be included for the plan to be effective, but that
information need not be retained indefinitely or necessarily reported to
others. (There could be a "mandatory disconnection" of one day to be
assured that the customer did indeed get the message, which could also be
waived at the customer's request for reason and with some restrictions.)

(2) The ISP hosts a (paid) proxy server on their premises that is built
and maintained as specified in the SOP. When the customer is reconnected
(for reason or need or when repaired) his connection is proxied through
this server for a (specified) few days. This allows the ISP time to know
that the machine is clean, certify this to the CA and resume a normal
connection.

The proxy server would be built to some standard to minimize or mitigate
the transmission of malware vectors by the (previously?) compromised
machine(s). And it would allow (limited?) connection for the need or
convenience of the customer.

For example, if a customer's machine gets a (0-day?) virus and starts
sending a stream of traffic while trying to spread, it is detected and
reported, that customer is immediately disconnected by the ISP while
concurrently notifying the CA and the customer. (The ISP *calls" the
customer or the customer calls the ISP.) The (irate) customer says "Why
isn't my connection up?" The ISP can say "We had to; it's the new law.
...." Customer complains "I need to connect to get the new antivirus
sigs." ISP replies, "No problem." I have reset your connection so it
will go through the Coordinating Authority's Proxy Server, which will
protect other users of the network from infection until you can get your
machine fixed up.. You can get your sigs. And if they (really we, since we
run it under contract) don't see any more indication of the virus activity
by Friday we'll set your connection back to normal. If you have any
problems using the proxy server, give us a call. We're sorry for any
inconvenience. But we are required to do this under the new law, to try
to limit botnets and prevent cyber-terrorism. Is there anything else I can
help you with this afternoon? ..."

It would probably need to be planned and vetted and deployed in a small
jurisdiction initially. To be really effective, it would want to be
deployed at least nationally. But a test run to shake out all the details
could probably be set up in almost any state or county.


What do you think? Is this doable? Is it advisable? Are there other
suggestions that are better?

Thanks for asking, thanks for writing, thanks for reading.

responder wrote:
> Kevin the Drummer wrote:
> [snip]
> > So, what can WE do [to improve cyber security]?
>
> Whether any particular illicit activity is most correctly
> called criminal or terrorist

I suppose that there is overlap in the protection schemes between
those two classes of attackers.

> 1. Keep your own systems in order, updated and secure so you
> don't become part of the problem.

Of course! Gotta worry about the other folks tho. You cover
that below some.

> 2. Use a (firewall) log aggregation service

Yup.

> 3. Advocate (gently) for computer and network security, to
> people you know personally, especially if they are doing unsafe
> things.

I already do.

> 4. ... I think that there needs to be a generally accepted
> and acceptable standard that if a connected computer is
> compromised, it should be disconnected.

That would need to be somehow seen as a benefit to the end user.
Before the explosion in spam having someone else filter one's
email would have been wholly unacceptable. Now it's seen as an
absolute need. Having one's computer disconnected needs to be
seen as a need and managed well enough so as to provide a good
way back to a connected usable system.

> In order for such a system to be uniformly applied in a
> fundamentally non-punitive and non-disruptive way, the enforcer
> role must be essentially separated from from the discretion of
> the ISP.

I *think* I agree with that. I wonder if it's really needed tho.
Wouldn't someone move from one ISP to another if it was really
bad at their original ISP?

I wonder if someone could subscribe to an as of yet non-existent
service that would inspect their traffic for troubles and do the
shutdown?

I wonder if there is some way, sort of like your proxy idea, to
have a brown-out of the connection?

> I expect that technical issues would be minimal, initial set
> up costs relatively low, and initial and ongoing costs to be
> reimbursed to the government authority

Does it really require government intervention? Can't it be
a fee service paid to a 3rd party, or even the original ISP?
Considering your original NSA thread, do you really want the
gov't involved at all?

> Detection of compromised machines could be done the same way
> and by the same people who now do so: namely log aggregation
> services. Additional or alternate strategies could also be
> used, but would not seem to be necessary.

Should their be any detection of client machine components to see
if they are have vulnerabilities? For example, if someone is
running a really bad version of IE or Exchange, should the user
be alerted by email that their service will be restricted (brown
out or disconnect) after some number of minutes or days?

> A "Standard Operating Procedure" would be developed to specify
> what actions would happen and when they would happen. This
> procedure would be drafted with the input of all users and
> providers. This SOP would then be enforced by the statute.
> And the statute could authorize a procedure for modification of
> the SOP.

I can see that it could escalate to the above extent. But,
the black-hats are very adaptive and fast. I'm not sure that
a statute could keep up. Just imagine how fast Symantec could
respond if their were a statute governing what they provide.

> The essential elements are: (1) the ISP is notified (as now)
> of a compromised machine and then notifies the customer _and_
> the coordinating authority. The customer's identity would
> need to be included for the plan to be effective, but that
> information need not be retained indefinitely or necessarily
> reported to others. (There could be a "mandatory disconnection"
> of one day to be assured that the customer did indeed get the
> message, which could also be waived at the customer's request
> for reason and with some restrictions.)
>
> (2) The ISP hosts a (paid) proxy server on their premises that
> is built and maintained as specified in the SOP. When the
> customer is reconnected (for reason or need or when repaired)
> his connection is proxied through this server for a (specified)
> few days. This allows the ISP time to know that the machine is
> clean, certify this to the CA and resume a normal connection.
>
> The proxy server would be built to some standard to minimize
> or mitigate the transmission of malware vectors by the
> (previously?) compromised machine(s). And it would allow
> (limited?) connection for the need or convenience of the
> customer.

[snip]

> What do you think? Is this doable? Is it advisable? Are
> there other suggestions that are better?

I think that's a starting place. Maybe something like this would
make a good research project at a university. Universities
would also make a good proving ground, and the ISP (the school)
is small enough to be adaptive to such a system while it's in
development.

Thoughts from other folks?

--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.

"Kevin the Drummer" wrote in message
news:slrnefto6c.t1m.nobody@lwe125529.cse.tek.com.. .
> So, what can we do to keep our information out of the hands of anyone,
> including the gov't, that we don't trust with that knowledge? Now that
> we know that they're going to spy on us, or at least someone is going to
> spy on us.
>
> --
> PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
> Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
> Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
> opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.


Move to a backwards country that has a lack of technology.

Realize that in the US, this generations introduction to The Database most
likely started with establishing your SSN. From there its all downhill.
Since I am not of this generation, I dont have firsthand info on how one
initially gets added to The System, but I can imagine thats a good start.

I bought cigarettes for a pal of mine once at a 7/11. The cashier asked
for my drivers license, I presumed to check my age.
Ok, cool. I hand it over.
TO LOOK AT.
He swipes it through the card reader, and now, someplace, I am surely
labelled as a smoker. Further consolidation of databases occurs as info
is brokered from one firm to another... and you should be able to draw
your own conclusion with this.

Whatever, feel free to email me your credit card info or SSN info, or any
other private information if you happen to trust me more than any
government -- my point being, why trust -any- entity with your personal
information, or any entities ability to snoop on you.

I rather give more attention to the crafty inspired 'net criminals, dumpster
diving tweakers in my alley, or anyone who can strangle a penny from a
million 'live' positives that a sale of a database can provide. Thats a lot
more immediate to me.

Regardless of who or what is spying on you, as some will obsess upon ad
nauseum here, I will finally bring this thread to some semblance of
on-topicness:

If using technology, encrypt.
If your technology does not support it, dont use it.



jcj

Kevin the Drummer wrote:

> responder wrote:
>> Kevin the Drummer wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > So, what can WE do [to improve cyber security]?
>>
>> Whether any particular illicit activity is most correctly called
>> criminal or terrorist
>
> I suppose that there is overlap in the protection schemes between those
> two classes of attackers.

A botnet set up by a criminal can be sold to a terrorist. The original
intent was to limit the growth of botnets. If people see that this is
important to do for any reason, they will be more inclined to accept the
uniform rule to disconnect compromised machines.

>> 1. Keep your own systems in order, updated and secure so you don't
>> become part of the problem.
>
> Of course! Gotta worry about the other folks tho. You cover that below
> some.
>
>> 2. Use a (firewall) log aggregation service
>
> Yup.
>
>> 3. Advocate (gently) for computer and network security, to people you
>> know personally, especially if they are doing unsafe things.
>
> I already do.
>
>> 4. ... I think that there needs to be a generally accepted and
>> acceptable standard that if a connected computer is compromised, it
>> should be disconnected.
>
> That would need to be somehow seen as a benefit to the end user. Before
> the explosion in spam having someone else filter one's email would have
> been wholly unacceptable. Now it's seen as an absolute need. Having
> one's computer disconnected needs to be seen as a need and managed well
> enough so as to provide a good way back to a connected usable system.

Yes. There is work to be done in educating and motivating people in the
need for this. It does need to be widely accepted and supported. It is
the most non-disruptive and non-punitive plan I could outline. It can be
improved, and your comments are constructive.

For myself, I can see a real benefit just in preventing criminal or
terrorist activity. And while the plan should be non-disruptive to the
legitimate users, it should absolutely be as disruptive as possible to the
bot-meisters.

This benefit doesn't have a price tag; it cannot be easily quantified. We
don't yet have a clear example like the oft repeated example of "9/11".
And we really shouldn't wait for one or hope for one.

Perhaps this could be tied in to some other coupled benefit such as help
with peoples' compromised machines, as you suggested below. Maybe someone
else could comment on this

>> In order for such a system to be uniformly applied in a fundamentally
>> non-punitive and non-disruptive way, the enforcer role must be
>> essentially separated from from the discretion of the ISP.
>
> I *think* I agree with that. I wonder if it's really needed tho.
> Wouldn't someone move from one ISP to another if it was really bad at
> their original ISP?

I think that may actually be one of the best arguments in favor of the
need for a statutory requirement. Specifically *if* the requirement and
the implementation is is uniform and identical at all ISP's, there would
be little or no motivation to switch providers. It shouldn't be bad at
any ISP, and the procedures and the proxy servers at any ISP should be
functionally identical. That's the plan anyway. This exact question
would surely be a central concern to any ISP and would need to be
carefully addressed. One original thought was that a coordinating
authority would have names of users who were recently referred, and could
check all names requesting new service from other ISP's in the area. If
the user is switching providers to avoid cleaning the machine, the new
provider would be required to do exactly the same thing as the original
provider was required to do. This is not draconian. It is simply the
enforcement mechanism needed to provide uniform application of the rule,
and to protect ISP's from exactly this kind of exposure. The need for
uniformity is why I think that it needs to be statutory. I would think it
would be welcomed by ISP's because they would not be the "bad guy" in
disconnecting a compromised user, but only obeying the terms of a statute
and community standard. Perhaps that's an error.

> I wonder if someone could subscribe to an as of yet non-existent service
> that would inspect their traffic for troubles and do the shutdown?

I'm not sure I see a clear benefit in that. As I see it, the shutdown is
mostly symbolic, with a purpose to be sure that the user got the message
that his box is compromised and needs to be cleaned. If the user says he
needs the connection open, the ISP can open it through the proxy server.
That box would be set to filter mal traffic from the user to protect other
users. It might not pass all the traffic the user wants (or thinks he
wants), and it might be marginally slower. Aside from that, it would be a
fully functional connection.

I considered a suggestion to eliminate the actual disconnection in favor
of simply switching the connection to the proxy, sending an automated
e-mail and placing a banner and hyper-link at the top of all web pages. I
don't think that would be as effective as requiring the customer to
specifically ask for the proxy connection. There could be other issues
with an automatic switch-over. I think the manual method is better.

At one time I thought about non-intrusively filtering all traffic for UDP
spam, because it's almost impossible to control that any other way. But
it would really require software running on multiple machines at all
access points. I couldn't rigorously support that.

> I wonder if there is some way, sort of like your proxy idea, to have a
> brown-out of the connection?

This would be a little bit browned out, but not much hopefully. I think
it is important for the user to acknowledge the problem and agree to the
need for remediation. The server could host some simple helps for self
remediation and where to get outside help. Most ISP's already have such
pages posted.

>> I expect that technical issues would be minimal, initial set up costs
>> relatively low, and initial and ongoing costs to be reimbursed to the
>> government authority
>
> Does it really require government intervention? Can't it be a fee
> service paid to a 3rd party, or even the original ISP? Considering your
> original NSA thread, do you really want the gov't involved at all?

For the reasons stated, I think it does. Congress has traditionally
stayed away from regulating the internet, and I am glad for that. This is
a bit different because it is really a defensive measure to protect all
network users from attacks. I don't see a practicable way to do this
without statutory requirement. The proceeds of fees would only go towards
the most minimal of administrative costs with the bulk being returned to
the ISP for their hosting and other costs. In effect they would be
getting paid for doing what they are now doing for free.

WRT the warrantless wiretap, that is an abuse of power because it clearly
seems, and has been judged to be illegal and unconstitutional in very
significant ways. It appears to be a direct affront to the rule of law
and to every citizen. I don't necessarily feel comfortable with FISA, for
example, but prefer that laws be uniformly and fairly enforced, or else
challenged properly, - rather than ignored. We need to have our "leaders"
show proper respect for laws that are on the books as well as to the
Constitution.

While any authority *might* be abused, I really wonder who might think
they would benefit from abuse of of a "mandatory disconnect" statute,
while simultaneously being in a position to do so.

It is proper for government to provide for common security needs,
particularly when private sector cannot effectively do so. All parts of
the work that can be done by the private sector, should be. And that is
the plan as I see it.

>> Detection of compromised machines could be done the same way and by the
>> same people who now do so: namely log aggregation services. Additional
>> or alternate strategies could also be used, but would not seem to be
>> necessary.
>
> Should their be any detection of client machine components to see if
> they are have vulnerabilities? For example, if someone is running a
> really bad version of IE or Exchange, should the user be alerted by
> email that their service will be restricted (brown out or disconnect)
> after some number of minutes or days?

No, I would not think so. The criterion should be that if a connected
machine is compromised, it should be disconnected. Nothing more is needed
or justified.

>> A "Standard Operating Procedure" would be developed to specify what
>> actions would happen and when they would happen. This procedure would
>> be drafted with the input of all users and providers. This SOP would
>> then be enforced by the statute. And the statute could authorize a
>> procedure for modification of the SOP.
>
> I can see that it could escalate to the above extent. But, the
> black-hats are very adaptive and fast. I'm not sure that a statute
> could keep up. Just imagine how fast Symantec could respond if their
> were a statute governing what they provide.

Well, nothing says the ISP can't respond fast to any new threat, or in any
ways that they would normally deem appropriate. The SOP would only deal
with the procedures needed to implement the disconnection and
reconnection, and the specification of the proxy server. So as technology
changes over months and years, the SOP would be flexible enough to change
in that time frame. A coordination authority could have a paid or
voluntary board of advisors or such who might or might not meet face to
face from time to time or when they thought necessary. They could include
representatives from ISP's so it would be responsive to everyone's needs
(except of course the bot-meisters.)

>> The essential elements are: (1) the ISP is notified (as now) of a
>> compromised machine and then notifies the customer _and_ the
>> coordinating authority. The customer's identity would need to be
>> included for the plan to be effective, but that information need not be
>> retained indefinitely or necessarily reported to others. (There could
>> be a "mandatory disconnection" of one day to be assured that the
>> customer did indeed get the message, which could also be waived at the
>> customer's request for reason and with some restrictions.)
>>
>> (2) The ISP hosts a (paid) proxy server on their premises that is built
>> and maintained as specified in the SOP. When the customer is
>> reconnected (for reason or need or when repaired) his connection is
>> proxied through this server for a (specified) few days. This allows
>> the ISP time to know that the machine is clean, certify this to the CA
>> and resume a normal connection.
>>
>> The proxy server would be built to some standard to minimize or
>> mitigate the transmission of malware vectors by the (previously?)
>> compromised machine(s). And it would allow (limited?) connection for
>> the need or convenience of the customer.
>
> [snip]
>
>> What do you think? Is this doable? Is it advisable? Are there other
>> suggestions that are better?
>
> I think that's a starting place. Maybe something like this would make a
> good research project at a university. Universities would also make a
> good proving ground, and the ISP (the school) is small enough to be
> adaptive to such a system while it's in development.

I think a University would be an excellent test-bed. And it would be
valuable to have academic input.

> Thoughts from other folks?

Jay C. James wrote:

[Note: quotes out of original order but hopefully not out of context.]

> If using technology, encrypt.
> If your technology does not support it, dont use it.

Good advice. I think I said it before, but better said. And good
copycat, though. And good strategy: Copy someone else's good advice and
claim it as your own, to support some meaningless claptrap that you write
in between. And the beauty is that you don't even need to explain it
yourself, or describe it in any useful context to the reader. It is
stolen (even if valid), so if anyone questions it you can blame the
previous writer. It is a clever Usenet ploy, even if it is an ignorant
coward's strategy. Hey, it works !! Good Job, jcj ! (Not really)

> "Kevin the Drummer" wrote in message
> news:slrnefto6c.t1m.nobody@lwe125529.cse.tek.com.. .
>> So, what can we do to keep our information out of the hands of anyone,
>> including the gov't, that we don't trust with that knowledge? Now that
>> we know that they're going to spy on us, or at least someone is going
>> to spy on us.
>>
>> --
>> PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)! Show
>> Windows & Gates to the exit door. Unless otherwise noted, the
>> statements herein reflect my personal opinions and not those of any
>> organization with which I may be affiliated.

WoW ! This is a clever move -- : Include the previous poster's sig in
your quoted message. We don't see that very often here. How could that
happen ? Let me look. Oh, I see, here

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180

Oh my ! I hope y'all don't think that I'm that dreaded "anal" thing for
checking that. It's just that most "modern" newsreaders automatically
clip that sig from the quoted text. And if not, then the writer will. But
that's all OK with me, - I mean, - we're all just humans who might be
wrong about something, - and reasonable people can agree to disagree, and
to err is human, - and it's no big deal or anything like that. And now,
don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with posting to a Linux NG by
using an abominable microsloth newsreader. It's just "like" highly
unusual, sloppy, ignorant, microsloth-ish.

Nothing like that. No problem. No offense intended.

> Move to a backwards country that has a lack of technology.

_That_ is NOT good advice. I really think that (even?) you probably knew
that when you wrote it. It certainly is not going to work for 300,000,000
Americans. Please be respectful of our intelligence. If you meant and
intended to say "no way", then say "no way". There is no need for sarcasm
or rudeness or insincere, unhelpful advice. I personally don't think
there is no way. I fully intended (and still do intend) to re-post
helpful suggestions as my time allows. Unfortunately it takes more time
to be helpful and constructive that it does to be sarcastic and
destructive. Are we in a race? I will finish my messages in the time
they require.

> Realize that in the US, this generations introduction to The Database
> most likely started with establishing your SSN. From there its all
> downhill. Since I am not of this generation, I dont have firsthand info
> on how one initially gets added to The System, but I can imagine thats a
> good start.

Excuse please, but which generation are you "not of". Your superior
speech is just so hard to follow. (Oops, I think that might have been
sarcasm, so sorry.) Please write in intelligible language. Thank you.
In and all, that all would probably be admirably "on-topic", if we could
yet decipher what your intended topic actually was. I'm still cogitatin'
on that, - give me some time.

[ - snip some unintelligible stuff - ]

> -- my point being, why trust -any- entity with your personal
> information, or any entities ability to snoop on you.

Good Point, jcj ! Another admirable slam-dunk of indefatigable logic,
even if your language skills are entirely inadequate, even if it does not
take issue with anything that has been proposed here, even if it is a
total non-sequitur. And can you give us all any hints about how we could
avoid doing this (the original question) in view of the revelations about
the illegal, unconstitutional NSA-ATT wiretap case? Please and thank you
in advance.

> I rather give more attention to the crafty inspired 'net criminals,
> dumpster diving tweakers in my alley, or anyone who can strangle a penny
> from a million 'live' positives that a sale of a database can provide.
> Thats a lot more immediate to me.

huh?

> Regardless of who or what is spying on you, as some will obsess upon ad
> nauseum here, I will finally bring this thread to some semblance of
> on-topicness:

Ahh, a _Republican_ ! Now we are seeing some daylight.

(responder excuses himself momentarily while he dishevels his hair)

The "little spys" don't really trouble me very much. I can stop them.
The "big spys", with unlimited electric power supplies and many and
multiple supercomputers and paid for with my (unlimited?) federal money
and shielded by secret Executive Orders, with secret "Warrants", or
without, and with Executive Orders to violate and completely disregard all
laws, Constitutional caveats, and/or International Treaties, -- they are
the ones of concern. They are the honest, honorable, hard-working people
who have been made into the devil spawn of this Presidential
Administration that concern me.

I beg to guess that if my nation and country and way of life is threatened
by such, that I should be afforded the small residual privilege of not
being accused of "obsess"-ing, or at least not needlessly or unfairly
"obsess"-ing. If you, jcj, think it is "ad-nauseum", I think it is
10e1000 times ad-nauseum. Come a bit closer and I might puke on you.

And:

So:

You are finally bringing this thread "to some semblance of on-topicness",
because of why, exactly?

You did not add a single new element of information or advice that was not
plagiarized from previous messages in this very thread, among those you
accused of being off-topic.

You did not add a single element of relevant security information.

You don't use Linux, or reference anything related to Linux.

Ahh, I see it all now: You used a COMPUTER !! :0) :^)

comp.os.linux.security

Yes, you got it right. You have a COMPUTER !! So good for you. Very
good for you. So happy for you. Enjoy your COMPUTER. Please do write
again anytime your brain happens to come back to life.

> If using technology, encrypt.
> If your technology does not support it, dont use it.

As responded at top.

responder wrote:
> > I *think* I agree with that. I wonder if it's really needed
> > tho. Wouldn't someone move from one ISP to another if it was
> > really bad at their original ISP?
>
> I think that may actually be one of the best arguments in favor
> of the need for a statutory requirement. Specifically *if* the
> requirement and the implementation is is uniform and identical
> at all ISP's, there would be little or no motivation to switch
> providers.... If the user is switching providers to avoid
> cleaning the machine, the new provider would be required to do
> exactly the same thing as the original provider was required to
> do.

I hadn't considered the possibility that the "bad" ISPs would be
in higher demand than "good" ones.

> WRT the warrantless wiretap, that is an abuse of power because
> it clearly seems, and has been judged to be illegal and
> unconstitutional in very significant ways. It appears to be
> a direct affront to the rule of law and to every citizen. I
> don't necessarily feel comfortable with FISA, for example, but
> prefer that laws be uniformly and fairly enforced, or else
> challenged properly, - rather than ignored. We need to have
> our "leaders" show proper respect for laws that are on the
> books as well as to the Constitution.


Who cares about the Constitution? After all, "it's just a God
damn piece of paper." Google if you must for the originator of
that quote.


> While any authority *might* be abused, I really wonder who
> might think they would benefit from abuse of of a "mandatory
> disconnect" statute, while simultaneously being in a position
> to do so.

If there were an organization that wanted their OS or routers,
whatever, to prevail over others, then they might inject software
to abuse their competition in this regard.

Maybe it's not abuse, but incompetence or ignorance or SOP for
the ISP or OS? For instance, my firewall log software (PSAD)
routinely emails me that a machine where I work constantly
port scans my VPN connected host at my house. I contacted my
company's network support about that and was told by a very
skilled (based on my years of experience with him) person that
they hadn't installed anything odd on that WinXP machine.

> It is proper for government to provide for common security
> needs, particularly when private sector cannot effectively do
> so.

Or will not, or doesn't see any motivation to do so.

> > Should their be any detection of client machine components
> > to see if they are have vulnerabilities? For example, if
> > someone is running a really bad version of IE or Exchange,
> > should the user be alerted by email that their service will
> > be restricted (brown out or disconnect) after some number of
> > minutes or days?
>
> No, I would not think so. The criterion should be that if a
> connected machine is compromised, it should be disconnected.
> Nothing more is needed or justified.

I think at least an email is needed. Otherwise the ISP is just
letting the time bomb tick.

So, have you written to any members of Congress in your area?
Have you contacted any universities? Maybe you should? How
about an RFC?

Cheers...

--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.

responder wrote:
> Kevin the Drummer wrote:
>
>> responder wrote lots of good observations about
>> unconstitional and illegal NSA wiretaping which is one form of computer
>> insecurity.
>>
>> One thing that the US administration has been very lax in is improving
>> cyber security. With so much relying on a working Internet, we need to
>> keep it working. What can we do, as people who presumably care about
>> this stuff enough to read this newsgroup? I don't think we have the
>> luxury of waiting for someone else to do it for us. Maybe they don't
>> even want to do it for us? If the Internet were more hardened against
>> cyber terrorists, maybe the same hardening would lessen their ability to
>> do their own spying?
>>
>> So, what can WE do?
>
> I'm glad you asked.
I personally like your idea. I have advocated something like that for
quite a while. I actually think that the ISP should be happy that bogus
traffic that is hurting everyone is removed from the net (but then again
I may be way too naive).

The biggest problem with your suggestion is the "new law" part of it. I
don't think lawmakers can 1) grasp the issue and 2) create a law sans
all the obvious political baggage. At the end the law would probably be
counter productive and cause more problems than it fixes (but then again
I have very little respect for our current croup of lawmakers).

It seems to me that at the ISP level it should be pretty easy to
identify and enforce "good behavior". The economic implications are
enormous and should help to make ISP's more interested. I for one would
be willing to pay a small fee for the extra service, after all I have to
buy anti-virus, anti-spyware software now which ends up costing about
$100 per year. The current spyware/virus protection software is just
working at the wrong place and is therefore not very effective.

I am sure there will be those that think your idea is way way to
invasive but then the problem is very invasive too.


--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com