Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Do I have a problem with DOD monitoring network traffic?
Share: 
by YankeeJim | February 7, 2011 at 07:24 am
189 views | 0 Recommendations | 14 comments
Photos
Mission Creep
Yes. Someone in government should be monitoring network traffic to ferret and decipher potential threats, and to discover patterns with potential predictive threat value. Should it be the DOD? I don’t think so.
This is a case of DOD reaching into the domain of Homeland Security and an instance in which the National Intelligence Officer and President need to weigh in with Congress.
I smell mission creep.
“DOD database to keep watch on network traffic
Participation would be voluntary, but will provide a clearer view of cyber threats, DOD official says
By Henry Kenyon
Feb 02, 2011
In its ongoing effort to keep and hold the high ground in cyberspace, the Defense Department is considering developing a database to monitor government and private-sector network traffic. According to U.S. Cyber Command officials, participating in the database is voluntary, but the collected information will provide the government with a better view of cyber threats.
Speaking last week at a seminar on cybersecurity regulation hosted by the Potomac Institute, Marine Lt. Gen. Robert E. Schmidle Jr., deputy commander of Cyber Command, said that the shared database will provide the DOD with a common operational picture. The database will collect information from all of the services’ networks, the Homeland Security Department and other federal agencies.
But putting all of these various data feeds into a single coherent database “will be an ugly challenge,” Schmidle said. Cooperating organizations who contribute data will have access to the database. This shared approach is important because it allows the government to respond in a unified fashion during an incident, he said.
However, Schmidle said that he did not expect the database to be set up immediately, as there are potential policy and privacy issues to be ironed out first.
Those issues include concerns about how deeply the DOD should be involved in commercial and civilian government networks. Nextgov reported that legislators and federal officials continue to debate the best strategy to defend government networks and critical infrastructure while maintaining individual and corporate privacy.
Schmidle contended that his organization only overlooks and defends sites in the .mil domain and only conducts operations on the Internet when ordered to by civilian officials. But he noted that defensive cyberspace operations cannot be effective without offensive operations on other networks.
Defense and industry experts have recently noted that while the DOD has established cyberspace commands and missions, what is still lacking is an overarching strategy to coordinate activities and responses to attacks at the national level.”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 07:50 on February 7th, 2011
Thanks for that YJ ! I believe it's called the 'NSA'.
at 08:03 on February 7th, 2011
We have FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD. Isn't that enough money for bureaucrats and defense contractors? Can't they do their jobs with all these military/spy agencies? How did we get along just fine without DHS during the whole Cold War? Why do we need a Domestic Spy Agency? Is it because without a major foreign enemy to occupy their aggression, our Warlords have to turn Americans into enemies?
at 08:11 on February 7th, 2011
Guinevere, now we're on the same page.
When I modeled the Department of Homeland Security and its initial 22 agencies for the purpose of 1) understanding how they interact and 2) looking for opportunities to consolidate and to eliminate redundancies, I did so with great discipline.
I recommended to our government that they adopt a systematic methodology for doing this that is now the subject of my book, Smart Data, Enterprise Performance Optimization Strategy (c) 2010 Wiley Publishing.
I have briefed audiences including Army, DOD, Homeland Security, and Air Force executives. Without the Commander in Chief personally embracing the Management Approach for Securing America, departments and agencies will just muddle along in traditional turf wars and Congress will allow it because it benefits them.
at 15:26 on February 7th, 2011
What do you mean we're on the same page? What are you smokin'? Throw away that briefing book that you say explains how to make DHS to "interact" with other agencies. Throw away DHS. We don't need it. It is nothing but a domestic Gestapo.
at 09:09 on February 7th, 2011
As an invention of DARPA for the DOD the DOD has as much "right" to monitor the internet as anyone. Especially where Mil.net is concerned.
at 10:04 on February 7th, 2011
No problem with mil,net. When it comes to the rest, we need a national strategy and assignment of responsibility. If DOD wants the charter and civilian leadership thinks that is best, so be it. The line is crossed when DOD monitors civilians.
at 10:48 on February 7th, 2011
I don't believe the intention is to monitor civilians in the broad sense. What the military is asking is if other "like" government sectors want to contribute on a voluntary basis to their data base unifying intel for mutual purpose. Quite a different story. The NSA already monitors the "civilian" net. Including e-mail, telephone and radio traffic. So does Britain's GCHQ who work closely with the NSA. Don't worry, you are well covered.
at 14:57 on February 7th, 2011
Someone should be analyzing the information. Who does the monitoring is less important than that the information gets shared. If the CIA has information about someone the FBI is interested in, but does not let them know, or the DoD keeps information from the NSA, the results can be disasterous. Too many organizations and not enough cooperation. It has happened in Canada. The RCMP were investigating Sikh terrorists. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service had information on a serious potential threat, but through inter-departmental conflict and infighting, the information was destroyed, rather than shared. As a result, an airplane was blown out of the sky. The Air India bombing up here is a prime example that information needs to be monitored, but also it needs to be shared with the other agencies involved in keeping a nation safe....
at 15:33 on February 7th, 2011
The point is not about analyzing the info or sharing it. It's about WHAT and WHOM should be collected, WHAT and WHOM should be surveilled. It is obvious that all Americans' phonecalls and activities are considered fair game by the Surveillance State, which is digging through the data to find the "after-the-fact" justification for the surveilling. This is backwards way of doing things in a democracy and a nation allegedly governed by rule-of-law. We're surveilling our own citizenry with no probably cause. Why? Because the Surveillance State has decided it can get away with it. We have knowingly and deliberately become a police state -- one more sinister than those of the past due to sensitive satellites and massive computing capability.
at 11:01 on February 8th, 2011
I've said this before and I will say it again. If it were a police state, there would be less to complain about, because at least things would get done. Moreover, you would not have a right to complain about the things that were left, and doing so would get you locked up. Better to have the some level information gathering in place, because god knows, as soon as an attack happens all those crying out now about their rights being infringed will then be crying out that the government did not do enough to keep them and their loved-ones safe. This is not to say that unjust snooping into peoples privacy is warranted, but a known terrorist, or someone being investigated as a potential threat to society SHOULD be monitored.
at 14:37 on February 8th, 2011
I can't believe you said that.
at 12:40 on February 9th, 2011
I get that a lot... most people have agreed that I should not be allowed to speak without all listeners signing a disclaimer first... I may not support totalitarian governments, but the one good thing you can say about a dictator is they keep the trains running on time.
at 16:24 on February 7th, 2011
American citizenship does not translate into good citizen, nor can the government catch the criminal before an illegal act if some policing/ "monitoring" isn't engaged in prior to the action itself. All kinds of high-tech devices are used in the transmission of criminal intent and the government has to stay up to date with corresponding policing investigative tools. And we didn't become a police state. We as a society cried blue murder every time some event took place for more protection by the government. Your voice Guinevere was probably one of the loudest demanding the state to protect you.
at 18:55 on February 7th, 2011
I think an important issue thats being touched upon, is actually at the core of this new American security reality. These new advanced technologies being used. The question becomes what should be the guide line ? When does this new level of advanced surveillance technology cross the line on privacy issues, rights and freedoms? Where does this Patriot Act government action and terrorism concerns balance with American values and our democratic way of life. Has this been adequately addressed ? I tend to agree with (multiple name poster) Guinevere in suggesting the balance currently may have swing to far in government access and surveillance of Americans without proper guidelines and cause.