CSC 379:Week 4, Group 1: Difference between revisions
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
'''Links''' | '''Links''' | ||
* | * [http://pressesc.com/01178899253_bill_bans_eavedropping_NSA Recent bill passed against NSA surveillance] | ||
* | * [http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8394 Conforming to CALEA] | ||
* [http://www.correntewire.com/nsa_spying_on_all_internet_traffic Full information on AT&T secret rooms] | |||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
Revision as of 18:38, 27 July 2007
Internet Surveillance (e.g. AT&T’s NSA Rooms)
The issues concerning internet surveillance
Most of us are aware of government surveillance as it pertains to wiretapping to listen in on phone conversations. This type of government surveillance has had many laws developed around it and how and when it may be done. With the growth of internet traffic, similar surveillance has appeared in the realms of email, voice over IP (VOIP), and general internet traffic. The same problems that occurred years ago for the telephone communications networks have been approached for internet communications.
The first issue that surrounds internet surveillance is how to make it possible. In order to conform to Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), phone networks had to be designed so that wiretapping was an easy thing to do if an appropriate government organization requested it. However, much internet traffic is optical instead of electrical. When electricity travels through a wire, it emits a small magnetic field. Something very close to the wire could intercept the electrical communication without affected it. Optical communication doesn't "leak" any of the light, so the communication has to be disturbed in order to intercept it. This is usually done with a splitter which diverts a percentage of the light down another path.
The second issue is authority. Mainly, who decides whether and how much internet surveillance can take place. Should there be a different authority or amount of evidence in order to intercept foreign communications as opposed to domestic? Does the person whose information is being gathered have to be notified? Does the court have to issue a warrant for a government agency to investigate internet traffic? If so, how much information can be gathered without a warrant?
Links
Ethical issues with CALEA
Making it possible to intercept internet communications has several privacy issues surrounding it. A large amount of information passing through the internet is encrypted making it difficult to intercept. "Wiretapping" optical lines involves splitting which degrades the signal strength unlike typical phone line wiretapping. Because the information is essentially anonymous once it leaves the local network and enters the world wide web, is it even possible to filter out a single person's communication? If there is a backdoor for government internet surveillance capabilities, how can the typical American be assured that this backdoor is only used by the government?
Encryption
Especially when talking about VOIP, much communication is encrypted. Even the networks serving such content cannot decrypt the content without the decryption key. The United States government has requested a backdoor to such communication in the past, but it could not be provided by the VOIP networks that supported such encryption. If these networks can allow for criminal communication without a method for the government to intercept the communication, should they be allowed to exist? Or should citizens be allowed to have a form of communication that they can be reasonably assured is completely private?
Splitting optical communication
With electrical communications, government organizations could easily start intercepting information without affecting that communication in any way. This can not be done with optical communications. Therefore, in order to allow surveillance effectively, the intercepting of information must have already been started before it was requested. This means that average citizens of the United States will have the information intercepted (even if not recorded) regardless of whether the citizen is under suspicion. Shouldn't unsuspected people be allowed privacy of their communications?
Difficulty of filtering
Most legal surveillance depends upon the governments right to intercept communication from or to a particular person or organization. However, in many circumstances, this is impossible without intercepting a large amount of communication between other people. Since this information is intercepted, a government agent could stumble upon private communications. The only method preventing this accidental invasion of privacy is programs that attempt to filter out only certain types of data. Since it cannot be proven that such filters will actually prevent invasion of privacy, should the government be allowed to intercept communications when they can't intercept only the suspected persons' data? What if the program could filter out all unsuspected individuals? Would it not still be an invasion of privacy for those communications to be intercepted and stored even if they are later filtered out?
Backdoor security
Having a backdoor for internet surveillance must be extremely secure. If a government agency can use the backdoor to intercept communications when given the appropriate authority, how can we be sure that such a backdoor can't be used without appropriate authority? Especially when dealing with the NSA, citizens fear that given an inch, they will take a mile. Allowing the backdoor to exist gives them the opportunity to use it at their own discretion no matter what the legal authority says. Just as well, building a backdoor into a system that doesn't intrinsically have such a backdoor lowers the security of the entire system. It may be possible for criminals to use the backdoor created in order to combat them for their own cybercrime.
Links
- Recent bill passed against NSA surveillance
- Conforming to CALEA
- Full information on AT&T secret rooms
Links
- International law enforcement agreements - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0121-01.htm
- Whistle-blowing about NSA rooms - http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/whistleblower_h.html
- Full information on AT&T secret rooms - http://www.correntewire.com/nsa_spying_on_all_internet_traffic
- Recent dismissal of case against NSA - http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026379
- Recent bill passed against NSA surveillance - http://pressesc.com/01178899253_bill_bans_eavedropping_NSA
- ACLU against 'wiretapping' of VOIP - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1895253,00.asp
- Allowing email surveillance without warrant - http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6037598.html
- EFF sues AT&T for helping NSA - http://boingboing.net/2006/01/31/eff_suing_att_for_he.html
Prompt
During the mid 1990s, one would consider himself/herself lucky to find what one was looking for though an internet search. As internet usage has grown, better search technologies has emerged displacing many human created directory-based search engines with ones providing a vast array of dynamically-created and helpful results. Technologies such as Google Alerts allows the tracking of yourself and others content on the internet based on keyword identifiers. Voluntary technologies such as blogs, online photo albums, and social networking have added a wealth of information available about us online.
AT&T has come under scrutiny by members of the public for allegedly constructing “NSA rooms” containing equipment that has the capability to monitor large amounts of internet traffic and are only accessible special US Government-affiliated staff members.
Examine a variety of ethical concerns related to tracking of both voluntarily and non-voluntarily provided information on the internet by members of the public, employers, government, and schools. Cite relevant laws, policies, and/or actions taken that are related to these concerns.