Does The US Government Really Need 'Wider Latitude' To Monitor Private Networks?
from the e-Maginote-Line dept
Harvard Law Professor, and former Bush White House lawyer, Jack Goldsmith has an opinion piece today in the NYT about cyber-security. In it, he makes a number of obvious (though admittedly often overlooked) points about the need for better education and information sharing, but then asserts that those, untried, methods will not be enough. Instead, he argues, "The government must be given wider latitude than in the past to monitor private networks and respond to the most serious computer threats." For a lawyer who saw first-hand (and even wrote a book about) the excesses of the Bush administration, this is a reckless claim. The repeatedly documented violations of civil liberties by the NSA and other government agencies (not to mention their private sector compatriots) through widespread network surveillance did not serve to protect and defend US critical infrastructure. In fact, by adding legitimacy to network monitoring, scholars like Goldsmith and respected countries like the USA make it easier for less savorable regimes to justify their digital surveillance and crackdowns. While China's "Green Dam" censorship software was justified on child-safety grounds, the next iteration of liberty limiting code could very well be to stop "cyber-terrorism" or some other amorphous, ill-defined concept.
A far more level-headed approach to cyber-security is taken by Evgeny Morozov in his recent essay in the Boston Review, which points out that "[m]uch of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies—which need to justify their own existence—and cyber-security companies—which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety. Journalists do not help. Gloomy scenarios and speculations about cyber-Armaggedon draw attention, even if they are relatively short on facts." While Goldsmith is certainly not promoting increased government intervention out of self-interest, it is not good enough to pay lip-service to privacy and network openness. Decision-makers need to recognize that certain policies and rhetoric will inevitably have dangerous, unproductive unintended consequences.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cybersecurity, jack goldsmith, monitoring
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What exactly does he mean by this statement ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw it on Oprah yesterday as they did a thing on "Visiting Windsor Palace" Sorry, but I recently upgraded to DirecTV's new system and now have a 20-tuner HD TiVo setup that will be available in November as Dr. John Malone's close PR folks promised. I see everything.
So you got XM and Sirius, huh? Flying high on those beautiful Boeing 702s.
Glad to be a part of the limited demo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pots insult kettels
Yeah I loved how over 8 years everyone came running out of the Bush White House screaming about how awful "they" were and the terrible violations of the consitution and public trust "they" committed. None of these guys ever seem honest enough to admit that they were part of they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again...
You guys tend to make it sound as if the government has some super secret domestic spy network that was originally supposed to be used against the Russians and is now turned against {content deleted by Echelon Network} for the purpose of {content deleted by Echelon Network}.
Government good, everyone else baaaad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Senior-level FBI guy down the street thinks I'm gay so I guess I have had some success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, I also trace route regularly and see that "information" entered in searches destined to Google oft go to Virgina or DC before getting a ride cross country on the Mountain View OC48 express where they become "data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government's Are Always Snooping Around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government's Are Always Snooping Around
However, opening a letter has been authorized by what law? Aren't you accomplishing the same thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not forget..
Oh, gotta go, there is a black helicopter outside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys love XO Communications, huh? I wondered why it wasn't dissolved in Chapter 11. Do you get a few bucks from the Bush Administration? See: connections to DC/Virginia.
Here's another:
http://www.komonews.com/stories/37150.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We didn't brief them enough" or whatever he said.
So, uh, where's the WMDs that you and your guys said existed?
I want my money back.
- The Gay Asshole per FBI records
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]