Will Americans Lose Access to the Internet

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday called for new security measures to guard against attacks on the United States that use the Internet, which he called "a potential Achilles' heel."
    "I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."The Washington Times
article

Is Freedom to use the Internet a Right under Under freedom of Speech, in the American constitution or, is it  a privelege? And before you say "can't happen here" look at what else Americans have lost

•  In a word...

  No.

  Let's be serious.  I am not so sure that would go over too well.

  I bet he was talking about Internet Security in terms of hacking of financial and DoD sites.

  Tim

  by ttagaris on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:07:58 PM PDT

  •  Already started.

    Sherman Austin

    by ben masel on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:03:55 PM PDT

  •  When you look at corporate systems security ...

    how much risk is there of unassisted internet intrusion?

    That door is pretty tight, if my experience isn't too out of date. Considering the much more attractive option of insider corruption, directly or through a vendor, it isn't the sort of primary concern that would make you want to review the public infrastructure.

    It makes more sense to think that this is a way for government and industry to create additional controls to allow for the privatization of certain transmission rights, particularly intellectual property distribution.

    High on the list, for instance, is the cable companies' fear that video content -- television -- will migrate to Personal Video Recorders and their hard drives, and so render a broadband line capable of supplying as much content-on-demand as cable television. You're not talking CD's here; this is big business.

    by macdust on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:15:03 PM PDT

•  Honestly

  I've been expecting this to come. Terrorism is the bogeyman that will enable them to strip away all of our freedoms. And the W-loving public will beg for it!

  1984 and Hand Maid's Tale are looking more and more likely every day.

  by logorrhea on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:09:51 PM PDT

  •  The myth of cyber attacks

    Government officials are crying wolf. This "threat" of terrorism over the internet is an unbelievable load of crap. Individual systems can be vulnerable, but it's a problem with the companies who run them and not the internet infrastructure. Microsoft Windows is the largest problem on the internet today. If the government wants to make cyberspace safer they can start by banning the use of Windows in government facilities.

    Unfortunately for this country, the clueless men in power will happily strip away the open nature of the internet. It's the same false sense of security like from the airport security measures that have been implemented, which makes flying more inconvenient but not any more secure.

    by puppethead on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:55:48 PM PDT

  •  Great analogy

    Equal credit to A.Q. Khan's nuclear Walmart and those determined to change a democracy into a theocracry. The Handmaid's Tale has been on my mind a lot recently.

    by Avila on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:18:43 PM PDT

•  It's called the World Wide Web for a reason

  His quote does sound rather draconian, but I don't get how Tenet proposes the internet will be regulated, even if the first amendment is gutted. The internet is worldwide, and it would be very difficult to regulate sites maintained on servers in countries outside the United States.

  by pine on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:10:55 PM PDT

  •  look at China

    Fact is China has found a way to severely limit the Internet. What stops America from doing the same? Only for security reasons of course

    by redrobin on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:13:31 PM PDT

    •  Not Just Security

      The Internet could be banned for other reasons just as important as national security.  I have it on good account that if one is depraved enough, nekkid pictures can be found there.  I don't know myself, but I've heard.

      by Kickturn on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:39:52 PM PDT

  •  But

    What about access to the internet? Is there a way to prevent people from logging onto the internet? Banning ISP's and access to servers?

    by logorrhea on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:14:41 PM PDT

    •  possible, yes. likely, no.

      Yes, I concede that it technically is possible for the government to block access to the internet. But I doubt that such a move would be tolerated by the U.S. citzenry . . . it'd be way too creepy a move.

      by pine on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:33:21 PM PDT

      •  Way to Creepy

        What about the protests where people were netted and held for reasonable lengths of periods with their families not being notified. think that would be too way out to happen in America? Or a six year old being tazered?(hope I spelt that right) or a new class of fighters called enemy combatants with no rights?

        by redrobin on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:38:45 PM PDT

        •  one more thought

          Well, as I said in my last post, I do concede that it is a possibility. And as a card-carrying ACLU member, I certainly do agree that the erosion of civil liberties under the Bush administration is a very disturbing trend. That having been said, I'm still not ready to say that I think it's likely the government will take the internet away.

          by pine on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:44:28 PM PDT

•  It's only a matter of time...

  Before they begin to try to crack down on dissent on the web. My suggestion: everyone start a site or blog. The more voices raised...

  by scorpiorising on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:14:03 PM PDT

•  Sadly ironic

  A Recent Diary

  I read No. 9 under "What's Coming" with disbelief.  Certainly they couldn't attack the Internet, I thought.

  Now this, and now the obvious reasoning to take down sites, not even necessarily through government channels, but by the government pressuring ISP's, alleging terrorist activities to seize servers, etc.

  We think it could not be done now, but all the while we are thinking it is not possible the neo-cons are dreaming of how it can be done.

  by SonsofLabor on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:15:01 PM PDT

•  If AOL

  can sensor content, and I am told they do, then we can be forbidden to organize on the web. Since the Dems raised money this year outside the corporate hegemony they have strong reasons to do it. The question is, can we stop them?

  by johnmorris on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:21:39 PM PDT

  •  We need to start thinking

    in terms of what has worked in the past. The Iraqi people seem to be giving them a run for their money. Not that I want that here, but think along the lines of Thomas Paine and the Federalist papers.....we need to start creating an underground network infrastructure, JUST IN CASE we need it.

    by rcvanoz on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:27:36 PM PDT

    •  Underground

      we need to start creating an underground network infrastructure, JUST IN CASE we need it. rcvanoz
      I smiled when I read that, fact is I live in Austalia and we already have developed one my guess is so have people in America. Finding them and joining up is probable the hardest thing, you can't actually advertise it. But as more and more rights are being taken away not just in America but most countries lose of the Internet has to be the one that would be most desireable by warmongers and least desireable by those who want access to the truth.

      by redrobin on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:33:02 PM PDT

      •  Austalia... is that anywhere near Kamberra?

        or perhaps its a suburb of Vienna.  :)

        I'll seek out the alternative network in due course when John Howard's clampdown reaches the internet, too.

        by canberra boy on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:42:16 PM PDT

        •  okay my Spelling is Bad

          Australia Sydney to be exact and the fact is Howard isn't to bad but have you noticed whatever happens in America starts to seep over. You know the abortion issue, religion in politics, hiding the facts, calling anyone who doesn't follow the party line a supporter of terrorists. Just those little things

          by redrobin on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:51:36 PM PDT

          •  Ah yes

            the little things like lying to the nation to protect yourself or gain political advantage, frightening the population with false 'evidence' about boatloads of refugees (read 'terrorists')swarming our shores, invading Iraq solely because it provided domestic political advantage, exploiting and promoting racist tendencies in some Australians, signing away control of significant domestic cultural policies and health benefits to 'obtain' a Free Trade Agreement with the US...  don't get me started.  

            But John Howard didn't need to import those ideas.  He's smart enough to come up with them himself.  ;-)

            by canberra boy on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:05:32 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      We need to have layered backups, including the older sort of federated BBS structure behind FidoNet and several others where isolated systems exchange messages by dialing each other over night.

      Let's just allow that Dr. Patridge may be right. Then let's suppose that Madsen's sources are real. If we're living in that world, and if the Netizens really do start to fully open that can of worms, AmBush Co's going to be strongly motivated to find a really good excuse to shut all this down in a hurry - tempered only by the business losses resulting from a complete shutdown of the Net. So at least we should be safe through Christmas shopping.

      Now, what's that date again when the pretender gets to fondle the only book he's ever read part of aside from My Pet Goat?

      by wytcld on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:39:46 PM PDT

      •  but

        what about us passionate types who are willing to sacrifice all for the good fight, but have no idea what the heck any of this tech-lingo means?

        Will we be left behind?

        Is there any way to steer someone like me in the right direction without giving up the map to the secret staircase?
         

        by tepster on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:57:43 PM PDT

    •  The choke point

      is the isp connection. The architecture of the internet is such that, once the package is in the loop, its impossible to intercept. That was the original design concept. But all of us buy access from some commercial on ramp. Mine is Southwestern Bell, a clear corporate hag. Any attempt to control content on the web has got to be at the isp level so, does anybody know of a pirate isp? (This is the opinion of a structural engineer, if I can't hit it wiht a 6 pound hammer I don't believe in it. Someone who knows something will, I hope, correct me.)

      by johnmorris on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:42:46 PM PDT

      •  What about satellite access?

        To a company based outside the US?

        If they "regulate" they internet, I am out of here the very next day. The internet is extremely dangerous to them, and is a bastilion of immorality to those whom seek it.

        by nephalim on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:55:51 PM PDT

        •  Bastilion...

          would be a bastion located in Paris, right... ;-)

          by canberra boy on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:15:10 PM PDT

      •  Technology

        Satelites and wireless networks I believe may be a very good combination.

        by redrobin on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:56:18 PM PDT

      •  Internet can be replaced

        If need be, the internet can be replaced by a mesh of interconnected wi-fi networks. These wireless networks could eventually interconnect across the country, creating a completely distributed communications network that won't be controllable by the government. Think of it as similar to the free radio broadcasts of WWII in Europe, like France.
        

        by puppethead on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:12:48 PM PDT

        •  But

          do these have the same internet architecture. The important bit is the separation of the message into discrete packets that can take multiple independent paths. That's why it was first worked out, to maintain communication in the event of a nuclear magnetic storm. Any linear connection can be intercepted.

          by johnmorris on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:33:18 PM PDT

          •  Same networking protocol

            The short answer is yes. The geeky answer follows.

            Information is sent across the internet using a protocol called TCP/IP. It is at this level that data are broken into small, routable packets. Each of these packets makes it to the destination via an optimal route. Special devices called routers can help optimize the paths, but every computer on the network can do routing to its neighbors.

            To make it easier for humans to use, there is an addressing system called DNS that is used to convert numerical machine addresses to domains that we are familiar with, such as dailykos.com. DNS has some shortcomings and is increasingly being controlled by corporate interests. DNS is not required for networking but is merely a convenience for humans. It is also nothing more than a protocol, and an alternate DNS structure can be set up. All it takes is for everyone to agree to use it.

            The bottom line is that as long as we can get the hardware, a new network can be created that is not dependent on any of the existing internet infrastructure. And if new protocols need to be defined, they can be.

            by puppethead on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:58:17 PM PDT

            •  Impressive

              I would have rambled on about DHCP for a few paragraphs. This is a really good explanation.

              by Avila on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:07:20 PM PDT

            •  Thank you

              I feel better already;-)

              by johnmorris on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:44:01 PM PDT

•  PNAC has it in their plans

  Our favorite neo-con group already has designs on this one. In their white paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses," they drop in a mention of controlling cyberspace. It's slipped in with the part about dominating space.   Wouldn't surprise me if this was the first shot in their pursuit of that one. Take away those freedoms little by little and no one will notice, right?

  (sorry no link - I'm heading to bed and can't look up the direct quote right now... if you're not familiar with the document, it's at www.newamericancentury.org, under the link for publications. It's a really, really long paper, but an absolute must read.)

  by think2004 on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:48:45 PM PDT

  •  Carnivore

    a mention of controlling cyberspace

    Magic Lantern. et cetera. How much control do they have already?
    

    by Avila on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:10:22 PM PDT

•  Marshall Law Declared: Industry Systems Vulnerable

  It is no longer necessary to believe anything George Tenet says about why the government will do something.

  He will make such statements henceforth for the benefit of those who need to believe in one, but they will be obviously absurd.

  This is only a transitional practice so that those who are used to hearing reasons why the government does something can wean themselves slowly of that expectation. If the reason were more plausible, it would be harder to stop looking for a plausible reason.

  Within a few news cycles, there will no basis for policy announced at all. He will then follow protocol that is now standard at the White House, which undertook this weaning exercise by issuing illogical and false justifications during the run-up to the occupation of Iraq.

  The administration has found that abandoning public rationale has added a new efficiency to the deliberative process. Citizens are in fact happier not to know the reasons why policies have been put in force.
  

  by macdust on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:26:15 PM PDT

  •  A case in point

    Did you know gathering information from the internets may be considered illegal? Discussed here.

    It's probably useless to speculate now why as to our representatives didn't fight harder on PATRIOT 2. This really is martial law waiting to happen - none too patiently.

    by Avila on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:44:18 PM PDT

    •  There is always that period of hypnotic denial

      ... as you check and recheck and hope to conclude against your eyes that some horrendous event hasn't happened.

      by macdust on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:08:17 PM PDT

    •  And the "Marshall" is Kerik

      Check the NY Times' bio of the New Homeland Security Chief

      Mr. Kerik, 49, is a sharp departure from the usual button-downed mold of Bush appointees.

      He dropped out of high school, enlisted in the Army and worked as a private security guard in Saudi Arabia and a jail warden in Passaic County, N.J. In 1985, he joined the New York City Police Department, becoming an undercover narcotics officer who sported a ponytail and diamond earrings when he worked the streets. He went on to run the New York City Correction Department, where he established a reputation as an energetic reformer, before taking over as police commissioner in 2000.

      After helping to oversee the city's response to the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, he left office a few months later, at the end of Rudolph W. Giuliani's second term as mayor, and went to Iraq last year at the behest of the White House to help the Iraqis set up a security force.

      Now a partner in Mr. Giuliani's consulting firm, Mr. Kerik campaigned this year for Mr. Bush.

      As I recall, the NYC police under Guliani were particularly effective in ending "lifestyle" crime -- petty infrctions that created the general atmosphere of lawlessness -- the Wild West of Tenet's accusation.

      This approach was enforced by thorough statistical monitoring of activity, neighborhood by neighborhood, and severe review of any captains whose numbers trended the wrong direction.

      Meanwhile, uptown, the greatest white-collar crimes of all times were carried out in the open, and the greatest mass murder in the history of the United States was in preparation. None of those activities appear in the sterling crime reports for that period.

      (Apologies for the corny "Marshall/Martial" switch.)
      

      by macdust on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:52:35 PM PDT