Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
FBI plans to centralize architecture of the Internet

By David Hume in MLP
Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 11:43:57 AM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

Fox News is reporting, in an article entitled FBI Seeking to Wiretap Internet, that "the FBI has plans to change the architecture of the Internet and route traffic through central servers [so] that it would be able to monitor e-mail more easily." "The plans goes well beyond the Carnivore e-mail-sniffing system." In his article INTERNET WIRETAPS PRO-TERRORISM?, the InstaPundit observes: "Hmm. Take a decentralized architecture designed to survive a nuclear war, and centralize it. What do you get? A big fat target for terrorists. If you could damage one or more of those "central servers" you could bring the economy to a halt. (And the bottlenecks created by this architecture would probably slow things down enough to do the terrorists' work for them. Or is this really an RIAA stalking-horse?)"


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Fox News
o FBI Seeking to Wiretap Internet
o INTERNET WIRETAPS PRO-TERRORISM?
o InstaPundi t
o Also by David Hume


Display: Sort:
FBI plans to centralize architecture of the Internet | 22 comments (15 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Ha! Easy solution. (4.57 / 7) (#1)
by Kasreyn on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 05:53:47 PM EST

Just submit this to slashdot. Their spiffy centralized servers will go up in smoke from the slashdot effect! MUAHAHAHAAA!

All joking aside, this is a very very very very stupid idea and it took Ashcroft's FBI to think of it. Good job guys, earning your pay I see.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
They cannot be serious (4.23 / 13) (#2)
by greenrd on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 05:56:03 PM EST

Centralize the Internet? The internet, the worldwide network?

So traffic within Paris would have to go all the way to the US and back again? Get real. That's not gonna happen. What are they smoking?

Or is this classic mixing up of the USA and the World? In which case, what are they going to do about terrorist activity outside the US?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes

What they should do... (4.66 / 15) (#3)
by babylago on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 06:28:41 PM EST

The FBI should get some really big routers. Then they should put one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast to ensure that most global internet traffic gets routed through one of these so-called central access points. They should give them catchy names, like MAE West and MAE East, put up a website, and have some front company, like, say, Worldcom run it. Then they would be able to tap just those routers, making their job much simpler in the future, since now the internet is just so distributed and decentralized.

---
[ Blog | Hunnh ]
There's a cheaper solution (5.00 / 8) (#4)
by DesiredUsername on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 06:32:35 PM EST

Why not just pass a law requiring terrorists to sign up with AOL?

Play 囲碁
Ignorant Pheds (4.69 / 13) (#7)
by Blarney on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 11:38:54 PM EST

This is just an attempt to take control of something which is perceived by a certain type of people as a chaotic nuisance. They are taking this opportunity to stop what they see as sneaky nerds running around, talking shit and going through good citizen's filing cabinets and bootlegging the fruit of good citizen's intellectual labors.

The real problem is that this will NOT increase security in any meaningful way. They were already spying on the net, playing dopey little games and pretending to be 16 year old girls who wanted to meet you outside the police station. They were already running phone calls through keyword scanners, collating credit card purchase records and bank records, and shutting down anonymous public library terminals with various pornography-based excuses. They were already making wiretaps without any authorization from any judge.

And our country was still successfully bombed by unorganized fanatics on a shoestring budget. The solution to our security woes is to spread freedom and prosperity worldwide, not to eliminate them domestically.

Thank you for saying that: (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by daystar on Sat Oct 27, 2001 at 11:49:54 PM EST

And our country was still successfully bombed by unorganized fanatics on a shoestring budget. The solution to our security woes is to spread freedom and prosperity worldwide, not to eliminate them domestically.
I couldn't agree more. I wish I could convince more people of this.

--
There is no God, and I am his prophet.
[ Parent ]
Wow - my first k5 .sig (none / 0) (#10)
by roystgnr on Sun Oct 28, 2001 at 03:47:14 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Ummm.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Elkor on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 11:11:07 AM EST

I agree with you up to your second to last sentence.

The terrorists are not unorganized, nor are they on a shoestring budget.

The budget they have to work with is smaller than the US Special forces budget, true, but they have more money to achieve their goals than thee or me do.

Discounting, discrediting and underestimating the enemy is the best way to let them defeat you.

Completely agree with the rest of the post, though.

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
What is to stop (4.00 / 5) (#14)
by FredBloggs on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 06:27:11 AM EST

The FBI from setting up a bunch of ISPs and become backbone internet providers, so there`d be a high chance that anyones data will be passing through it?

that could be quite cool (none / 0) (#22)
by odaiwai on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 11:21:21 PM EST

That could be a very neat thing for them to do as:
a) who's going to spam the FBI?
b) you get an email address foo@fbi.net
c) as a branch of the federal government acting as a common carrier they'd have every constitutional lawyer down on them like a ton of bricks if they tried to censor you.

dave
-- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
[ Parent ]
I've said it before... (4.66 / 3) (#16)
by DJBongHit on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 10:27:44 AM EST

... and I'll say it again, at least until people start listening to me. Use encryption, dammit! This type of shit isn't going to stop any time soon, so you might as well start protecting yourself.

~DJBongHit

--
GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

Slight problem with that... (3.00 / 1) (#18)
by nstenz on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 02:12:03 PM EST

The other side of the conversation I'm having needs to know what I'm saying. Most of my friends are computer-illiterate and wouldn't know how to install PGP even if I tried to walk them through it. They'd just say 'screw it'. Even if they did get it installed, I don't think they'd remember to choose to encrypt their messages- or they'd encrypt them all and their other friends would bitch at them for sending them a bunch of gibberish they can't read.

However, I do have PGP installed, and that is an excellent suggestion. I just wish it were more feasible for me. =\

[ Parent ]

Well... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by DJBongHit on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 02:16:40 PM EST

However, I do have PGP installed, and that is an excellent suggestion. I just wish it were more feasible for me. =\

Everybody seems to say "I'd use encryption, but nobody I email uses it!" So do what I do - PGP/GPG sign ALL your outgoing email, and when people ask you what it is, you have an excuse to explain it to them. If everybody waits for everybody else to start using it, it'll never catch on.

~DJBongHit

--
GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

[ Parent ]
That's what I used to do. (none / 0) (#20)
by nstenz on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 05:13:09 PM EST

Nobody ever asked. =(

However, PGP is installed with some sort of wrapper around my ICQ client... So if anyone else I talk to happens to use ICQ, our communications will be encrypted. That doesn't stop some jerk from stealing my computer and reading the plain-text conversation from the local database though. I suppose I could run my ICQ data directory encrypted and only allow icq.exe to have access to it... Hey- you've just given me a decent idea...

[ Parent ]

Stewart Baker denies being the source. (none / 0) (#21)
by 87C751 on Mon Oct 29, 2001 at 05:52:22 PM EST

The Fox story claims they got their info from Stewart Baker, but Baker denies this in a story on Politecbot.

My ranting place.

FBI plans to centralize architecture of the Internet | 22 comments (15 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!