New Federal Online Identity Plan

[B_TonyK8483]

Colorado Guy,

Also, TonyK8483, you aren't making any sense. Look at what you quoted from me and then look at your comment:

My response was predominantly to the second quote. There were two quotes

The first one was

Originally Posted by ColoradoGuy
According to Ars Technica, "Of the 470,161 browsers that participated in EFF's Panopticlick project, 83.6 percent had an 'instantaneously unique fingerprint.'" If it is that accurate, no amount of IP-spoofing will ensure that your electronic footprints are untraceable.

I didn't write a response to that. However my point was to basically state that 83.6% of IP's having an instantaneous fingerprint that cannot be spoofed is not the same as 100% -- 16.4% can be spoofed. This would effectively make all 100% instantaneously recognizable and un-spoofable, either that or it would be illegal to resort to means to make yourself not instantaneously recognizable.

The second response was

Originally Posted by ColoradoGuy
So, the OP asked for comments and here's mine: We've never had any real privacy anyway, so I'm not sure that free speech is threatened any more than it has ever been threatened by existing electronic surveillance.

Which I replied to. I basically said that your opinions that free speech would be affected no differently than currently wasn't exactly correct as this would effectively be an internet license and, being that licenses can be revoked, it would give the government more latitude to revoke one's internet access, should they express their views in a manner the government doesn't approve of.


Bbucko,

The only points of commonality is that they each serve to justify a level of surveillance that would have been unacceptable a generation ago.

Well, I can say that I agree with you on that 100%


The End

Nope, it will be horrifying.

Agreed

The mind of the government is already made up, the debate is just a side spectacle to let people think they have some kind of say in the matter.

Correct.

 

[sbat]

If it makes all you "privacy buffs" feel any better...

There's so much data and so many users online that even if one company (say...Google) gathered all possible user data, they would have a hard time putting effective controls over content provision (Wikileaks and the whole bit torrent community are prime examples) and users who take part in otherwise illegal online activities.

Yes, there is no true privacy. But for the adept user, there are plenty of cracks in the net to slip through.

Plus, noone important really gives a shit about Joe Schmo talking n'importe quoi on some political or big dick blog. Too busy freaking about about cyber attacks from China (which has already happened), Russia, and other major geopolitical opponents.

 

[B_New End]

Plus, noone important really gives a shit about Joe Schmo talking n'importe quoi on some political or big dick blog. Too busy freaking about about cyber attacks from China (which has already happened), Russia, and other major geopolitical opponents.

There is still the chill factor, which makes government sponsored opinions seem much more popular than anti-establishment opinions.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

TonyK8483, thanks for confirming that you didn't actually read what I wrote or that English is not your first language and you aren't familiar with the usage of the words "ensure" and "opinion".

 

[sbat]

There is still the chill factor, which makes government sponsored opinions seem much more popular than anti-establishment opinions.

No argument there.

I'm just saying. We have a war on drugs and "fascistic" enforcement of drug laws. Yet I know a lot of coke heads and heavy pot smokers (in states that don't have decriminalization or medical provisions for weed) who have been users for years without ever getting into any trouble. In many cases, extremely brazen users.

Hell, one spring break in Myrtle Beach, three of my friends were arrested for smoking weed (and possessing a fair amount) in front of some bored spring break patrol officers, and ended up only getting probation.

Point is, there are way too many users, way too much land, and way too much (bribe) money involved with any of these patrollable areas for there to be anything close to 100% enforcement. If there was 100% enforcement of drug use, the vast majority of the US population would have been incarcerated at some point in their lives. Which isn't even close to true, and won't ever be.

So again, if you understand the technology involved in online surveillance, and know how to navigate, this news isn't even worthy of a raised eyebrow. Government IT is far behind cutting edge, and by all indications, slightly behind that of China. Plus, you have a legislature full of fogeys who have no idea how any of the nuts and bolts of such a system would work who are negotiating the terms of how it will work.

Any grand plan that any government of the past 2 centuries has tried to implement has been bastardized both in the legislative hammering as well as bureaucratic implementation.

 

[B_New End]

So again, if you understand the technology involved in online surveillance, and know how to navigate, this news isn't even worthy of a raised eyebrow. Government IT is far behind cutting edge,

No, government IT is cutting edge. Carnivore was way ahead everything else. I mean... DARPA... right? Government developed the internet. They have the biggest and fastest super computers, and the most highly developed infrastructure.

and by all indications, slightly behind that of China.

You are pulling this out of your ass. Look:
BBC News - In graphics: Supercomputing superpowers

Any grand plan that any government of the past 2 centuries has tried to implement has been bastardized both in the legislative hammering as well as bureaucratic implementation.

So yeah, we as citizens might be safe in reality, but our opinions will continue to be ignored and called extreme while they get to do whatever they want. Just like now. Except they see that the internet is harming this capacity of theirs to control opinion, so they are going to try and chill it.

In other words, politicians advocating risking WW III with Iran will be called pragmatic, while people advocating diplomacy or allowing Iran to have nukes will be called "crazy" and "fringe"

 

[Bbucko]

Any grand plan that any government of the past 2 centuries has tried to implement has been bastardized both in the legislative hammering as well as bureaucratic implementation.

There's a very good reason for this: it's the rise in democracies and the death of autocracies around the world over the last 200 years. Universal suffrage leads to messy governments.

When I was in my 20s, I had a partner from Venezuela for about four years. He thought democracy was severely overrated and said that the only time anything got done in his home country was when it was a dictatorship

 

[B_TonyK8483]

Colorado Guy,

TonyK8483, thanks for confirming that you didn't actually read what I wrote or that English is not your first language and you aren't familiar with the usage of the words "ensure" and "opinion".

I misread what you wrote. I speak English fluently though (I was born in NYC)


New End,

No, government IT is cutting edge. Carnivore was way ahead everything else. I mean... DARPA... right? Government developed the internet. They have the biggest and fastest super computers, and the most highly developed infrastructure.

Correct.

our opinions will continue to be ignored and called extreme while they get to do whatever they want.

Something that's been an especially disturbing trend since 2001.

Just like now. Except they see that the internet is harming this capacity of theirs to control opinion, so they are going to try and chill it.

That's definitely part of it, they also would want to be able to ID users more easily for other reasons, such as data-mining, and for all I know, if they could revoke one's ID, it could give the government more latitude to prevent people from going online.

 

[sbat]

You're just plain wrong.

I spent 2 years doing software development and system administration for various federal agencies. Now I'm working for a private (well, publically traded) corporation. Government agencies are still by and large running Windows Server 2000, using Office 2003 in many agencies, and Windows XP on a good majority of desktops and laptops. Quite a bit behind the latest version of an operating system that already is behind the most cutting edge Linux platforms in terms of overall performance and security.

The companies with the most highly developed infrastructure are all corporations. The companies with the most talent are all corporations, and maybe Research 1 university Comp Sci departments. Who is developing the new technologies? Not government. Their SOP for technology updates is a tiered deployment after the "new thing" is 3 or 4 or 5 years old.

Anything the government does IT-wise, any decent mid-sized firm (1000 to say 5000 employees) was doing at least a couple of years ago. And anything they decide to roll out, it takes them forever to make it operational. And it takes 3 government developers to do what 1 Google or Microsoft developer could do alone in less time.

No, government IT is cutting edge. Carnivore was way ahead everything else. I mean... DARPA... right? Government developed the internet. They have the biggest and fastest super computers, and the most highly developed infrastructure.



You are pulling this out of your ass. Look:
BBC News - In graphics: Supercomputing superpowers




So yeah, we as citizens might be safe in reality, but our opinions will continue to be ignored and called extreme while they get to do whatever they want. Just like now. Except they see that the internet is harming this capacity of theirs to control opinion, so they are going to try and chill it.

In other words, politicians advocating risking WW III with Iran will be called pragmatic, while people advocating diplomacy or allowing Iran to have nukes will be called "crazy" and "fringe"

 

[sbat]

...And the interactive app from your link merely confirms my point. There are agencies that are well represented here - but they are all renting or purchasing equipment from...tech corporations such as IBM and HP.

We saw from the repeated instances of botched intel (look at how both the FBI and CIA, had they been able to easily share info, could have stopped 9/11, or that Nigerian X-Mas plane attacker) that even with all that (rented or borrowed) equipment, they can't piece together a shared government-wide database to piece together a puzzle if two different groups have a part of the whole story. And because of the political wrangling, they never will.

 

[Bbucko]

You're just plain wrong.

I spent 2 years doing software development and system administration for various federal agencies. Now I'm working for a private (well, publically traded) corporation. Government agencies are still by and large running Windows Server 2000, using Office 2003 in many agencies, and Windows XP on a good majority of desktops and laptops. Quite a bit behind the latest version of an operating system that already is behind the most cutting edge Linux platforms in terms of overall performance and security.

The companies with the most highly developed infrastructure are all corporations. The companies with the most talent are all corporations, and maybe Research 1 university Comp Sci departments. Who is developing the new technologies? Not government. Their SOP for technology updates is a tiered deployment after the "new thing" is 3 or 4 or 5 years old.

Anything the government does IT-wise, any decent mid-sized firm (1000 to say 5000 employees) was doing at least a couple of years ago. And anything they decide to roll out, it takes them forever to make it operational. And it takes 3 government developers to do what 1 Google or Microsoft developer could do alone in less time.

It was my understanding that the state of the White House's computers was dismaying to the Obama team when they finally had access to them. The entire system is antiquated, I remember reading.

 

[sbat]

It was my understanding that the state of the White House's computers was dismaying to the Obama team when they finally had access to them. The entire system is antiquated, I remember reading.

Yeah...

plus, if DARPA and the beginning of the internet is what you come up with for the avantguardism of government engineering...well that was all 50 years ago. What they were doing with room-sized computers you can do with a souped up desktop now. Except sadly, many agencies are still using those really old mainframes.

Infrastructure in general - not just technology - is pretty antiquated in this country.

 

[B_New End]

You're just plain wrong.

I see this time and time and time again on the internet. Somebody in the industry makes a comparison, get corrected, and use their industry expertise. Someone who fought in Iraq qill use that expertise to claim Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

You said China was better. If you are going to use your expertise as evidence, you also would have had to work on Chinese government computers.

You have no experience with Chinese technology or how well their systems are. I provided an interactive link which showed the Oak Ridge Supercomputer (which I would bet dollars to donuts IS a Linux Cluster) had abotu half the power of Chinese comps combined.

So, do you have experience with China as well? Or are you just pulling shit from your ass?

The companies with the most highly developed infrastructure are all corporations. The companies with the most talent are all corporations, and maybe Research 1 university Comp Sci departments. Who is developing the new technologies? Not government. Their SOP for technology updates is a tiered deployment after the "new thing" is 3 or 4 or 5 years old.

And? Corporations do contract for the government all the time. Look at the NSA wiretapping done by AT&T on behalf of the government. American government/corporations are the same thing.


BTw, I have an uncle that was the highest level of security at one of the most crucial departments in the US government. His shit was top secret, in the early 80's we assumed he was working on nuclear stuff. Turns out, he was doing network security. They are far from "behind".

My view has always been, if you have nothing to hide, why fear being watched? People fear losing their rights and civil liberties. They fear the 1st Amendment being banished by the President. The Supreme Court was established to prevent that from happening. The president has little power compared to Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress can always overpower the president and the Supreme Court can overpower both of them. It's important to remember the separation of powers that was established to ensure personal liberties are protected and that things will remain as they will for the past 200+ years. The United States has run from the same constitution since it's inception. It will continue to run that way.

Because the government has slowly eroded what is legal. And going through the hassle of going all the way to the supreme court to try and save your ass from a lifetime in prison for exposing corruption or saying you oppose the gulf war (do you remember what it meant to say that in 2003?) is not my idea of a good life. Have you ever had to go through the justice system? It's not some episode of Law and Order where you got good guys working their hardest to see justice prevails. It's a bunch of bureaucrats who stopped giving a fuck 15 years ago. They just want to go home before the commute gets ugly to watch the newest episode of Lost.

It was my understanding that the state of the White House's computers was dismaying to the Obama team when they finally had access to them.

whitehouse computers =/= NSA computers.

We saw from the repeated instances of botched intel (look at how both the FBI and CIA, had they been able to easily share info, could have stopped 9/11, or that Nigerian X-Mas plane attacker)

That's simply because you believe their bullshit. Playing stupid/incompetent was made popular by Reagan, and has become the de facto way to be legally corrupt ever since. I'm not even going to get into the Xmas plane "attack"... that was obviously staged or allowed.

"I don't recall" -- Alberto gonzalez.

 

[B_TonyK8483]

Sbat,

if DARPA and the beginning of the internet is what you come up with for the avantguardism of government engineering...well that was all 50 years ago.

Actually the ARPA net was created 41 years ago (1969), and secondly DARPA has created a lot of advanced stuff in more recent years


Horsehung86,

Logically, using network flow, it is best to capture the problem at the top. Cut off the head, kill the snake mentality. Why punish a simple user when you can hit suppliers. It just makes sense to approach the problem where it originates.

It is logical, and it's definitely effective, but the ability to crack down on everybody is much more appealing from a psychological perspective -- it effectively sends out a very firm message that no matter how many of you are out there, we can hit all of you at once.

 

[B_TonyK8483]

Horsehung86,

My view has always been, if you have nothing to hide, why fear being watched?

My view is, if I am doing nothing wrong, you have no legitimate cause to search me.

When governments surreptitiously gather enormous amounts of information about seemingly everybody, they're not doing it entirely for the public interest; they doing it because they realize information is power, and the more information they possess, the more stuff they can do with it. And this is not always done in the best interest of the public -- in fact, it is often done against the best interest of the public.


New End,

And? Corporations do contract for the government all the time. Look at the NSA wiretapping done by AT&T on behalf of the government. American government/corporations are the same thing.

It is not uncommon to see big business and government in bed with one another. What makes things worse is that the intelligence agencies have become far more willing to use private contractors to handle functions that had previously been considered inherently governmental in nature. This poses a number of serious problems, not the least being that they do not necessarily be bound by the same restrictions that a governmental organization would be legally bound by.

whitehouse computers =/= NSA computers.

Well yeah, the computers used by intelligence agencies are some of the most powerful in the world, and a great deal of the technology they employ is classified (What I know, which is completely unclassified, is obviously the tip of the iceberg).

Playing stupid/incompetent was made popular by Reagan, and has become the de facto way to be legally corrupt ever since.

Of course, and since governments do occasionally engage in acts of incompetence and stupidity, government misconduct disguised as incompetence and stupidity can often be mistaken for genuine government incompetence and stupidity.

I'm not even going to get into the Xmas plane "attack"... that was obviously staged or allowed.

Of course it was either staged or allowed -- personally I believe it was allowed to happen. Regardless our government easily possessed the capability to stop him.

 

[sbat]

I see this time and time and time again on the internet. Somebody in the industry makes a comparison, get corrected, and use their industry expertise. Someone who fought in Iraq qill use that expertise to claim Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Right. Because some internet know it all knows more than someone actually working in the industry.

Look, the only thing that legitimizes these kinds of discussions is people who actually have worked with the subject at hand weighing in with their experiences.

The motivation behind a great deal of the hundreds of billions being poured into government IT infrastructure (via the Stimulus Bill) is out of direct recognition of how far behind the majority of government functionality has fallen of the cutting edge - of even the private industry mainstream.

Yes, yes, you can talk about the massive clusters that a handful of government projects work with. But I'm not talking about the ultra-elite, top-level clearance DoD or NASA group. I'm talking about the systems and architecture used to support the vast majority of mainstream government use, which, in fact, does not require top secret clearance to complete work on. And any decent systems engineer, if given a workflow and even a portion of an architecture, can reasonably extrapolate the technologies in use and the full system.

The vast majority of employees at federal agencies - the tens of thousands of employees who aren't in the elite tier of military or engineering programs - use systems that are very frequently barely on the right side of ass-backwards, and are locked into extremely inefficient workflows due to the antiquated nature of the technologies in place - and are stuck with them because of the very expensive contracts used to build and implement them in the first place (vendor lock-in).

These points are extremely relevant to any kind of Federal database seeking to track the behaviors of internet users in the US because the effectiveness of that system will be dependent upon the architecture (technologies and systems engineering methodologies) put in place. While NASA and high level DoD projects have advanced systems that (may or may not) work well - they only do so because they are in esoteric subjects that are too incomprehensible for Congressfolk to try to attack, and the involved contractors have such an entreched relationship that they basically write the RFP's for the agency when necessary, although generally have IDIQ's or sole-source arrangements (because of the lack of other capable providers).
This will not be the case of a Federal Online Identity Plan, and it will be subject to scrutiny and compromise over the specifications that will probably set us up for a system so full of placating requirements that the technology used could not hope to keep up with its intended use.


Playing stupid may be a ploy. Not arguing there. But acting omnipotent and all-seeing/all-powerful is just as much of one. The US government is neither stupid nor is it all-powerful. It is a bureaucratic morass that is constrained to very long time-frames for executing very watered down/subverted versions of the chief executive's desired policy.

Lastly, oh my bad. Sorry. DARPA was 41 years ago, not 50.

Here is what the US government generates today that is cutting edge: Military equipment
Media coverage of each and every politician's every move

Notice, I left off anything to do with technological or physical infrastructure. Particularly the ability to integrate entire systems between different departments/agencies. Which is really the bigger picture because the future of national security efforts (both in terms of defense, border control, medical records, personal citizen data, etc) is dependent on the ability to rapidly update, insert, and move/share between different authorities under the greater federal umbrella. Right now, the present state is a mess. Any insider with a grasp of the technical issues will say the same thing.

 

[B_New End]

Yes, yes, you can talk about the massive clusters that a handful of government projects work with. But I'm not talking about the ultra-elite, top-level clearance DoD or NASA group.

I am, and in particular NSA and DHS computers. I don't know why you don't want to talk about those, since those are the ones doing the heavy data mining.

Look, the only thing that legitimizes these kinds of discussions is people who actually have worked with the subject at hand weighing in with their experiences.

And as I said, you have no experience with Chinese govt computers, so your attempt to use your experience with American govt computers as evidence of China's being better is logically fallacious. You can say American computers are a mess, (and I can disagree, because you did not work NSA, DHS, or other subcontracted super clusters), but you cannot say that Chinese are better.

Like I said, a soldier cannot use his experience in Iraq to compare it to Vietnam or WW II. A person cannot use their work experience at a GM factory to claim it is superior to the production process at Ford.

This logical fallacy also applies to scope. I do not get to use my 2 years of work expertise in home computer security to make statements about government or defense computer security.