FBI wants widespread monitoring of 'illegal' Internet activity
WASHINGTON--The FBI on Wednesday called for new legislation that would allow federal police to monitor the Internet for "illegal activity."
The suggestion from FBI Director Robert Mueller, which came during a House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearing, appears to go beyond a current plan to monitor traffic on federal-government networks. Mueller seemed to suggest that the bureau should have a broad "omnibus" authority to conduct monitoring and surveillance of private-sector networks as well.
The surveillance should include all Internet traffic, Mueller said, "whether it be .mil, .gov, .com--whichever network you're talking about." (See the transcript of the hearing.)
In response to questions from Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, Mueller said his idea "balances on one hand, the privacy rights of the individual who are receiving the information, but on the other hand, given the technology, the necessity of having some omnibus search capability utilizing filters that would identify the illegal activity as it comes through and give us the ability to preempt that illegal activity where it comes through a choke point."
In response, Issa said: "Can you have someone on your staff designated to work with members of Congress on trying to craft that legislation?"
If any omnibus Internet-monitoring proposal became law, it could implicate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, courts have ruled that police need search warrants to obtain the content of communication, and the federal Wiretap Act created "super warrant" wiretap orders that require additional steps and judicial oversight.
In addition, it's unclear whether "illegal activity" would be limited to responding to denial-of-service attacks and botnets, or would also include detecting other illegal activities, such as online gambling, the distribution of "obscene" images of adults engaged in sexual acts, or selling drugs without a license.
Robert Mueller
(Credit: FBI )To be fair, Wednesday's discussion of the plan was geared toward cybercrime and the Bush administration's classified "cyberinitiative," which includes a shadowy program known as Einstein.
Some politicians have already raised concerns that even Einstein, which is described as dealing only with government networks and not private ones, could infringe upon the privacy rights of American citizens. It's already in place at 15 federal agencies, but Homeland Security has said it's still preparing the necessary privacy impact assessments for a proposed $293 million governmentwide Einstein expansion.
Issa, for his part, referred on Wednesday to malicious attacks being undertaken by foreign and domestic hackers who want to "take control of computers" and harvest the national-security secrets and private information of government agencies, private companies, and individual Americans.
"What authorities do you need to monitor, looking for those illegal activities, and then act on those, both defensively and, either yourselves or certainly other agencies, offensively in order to shut down a crime in process?" Issa asked.
In response, Mueller said he would be happy to have his legislative staff work with members of Issa's committee on creating a bill for a broader-reaching surveillance system.
Issa suggested that perhaps the FBI already has the power to seek voluntary private-sector partners that would like to be "defended" by its agents, provided that they give the FBI their consent. Mueller, however, wasn't so sure, saying, "that's going to require some thought."
[6:00 pm: Updated story with additional quotations from transcript of the hearing.]
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
Privacy on the Net right now is a myth.
We are living an Orwelian nightmare.
Investigating Money laundering could be plausible enough excuse to see all bank transfers and payments you do over the net. If I have a subscription to some sexually oriented or politicaly oriented online service, I do not care to have anyone else know about it much less the goverment. I realize that much on the internet is free to find and grab information from, but there are somethings that you want to keep between you and those close to you. Buisiness deals, hot tips on the stock market, and ideologically sensitive comments should sometimes be held close to the chest.
There is still some anomity on the net. Where we can view and vent some of our true feelings with out fear of back lash or social constraints. Lets keep those simpletons who simply flame, those who troll, and those who speak things to just get a rise out of people under the mask of anomity. it's good stress relief and it just might make you think.
Considered in the light of so much existing monitoring, this is hardly new ground, so maybe I'm being too sensitive.
It already exists. It's called a F****ing Court Order.
So much for the the 4th amendment.
and with most phones going VOIP, they'll listen to all the phone calls, too.
I guess I'll have to arrainge my little extra curricular activites with flags and semiphone.
P.S. Nancy, meet me at the Days Inn outside of town.
It'll be easier to build a fence around the country, pull all our troops home and end trade - become self sufficient!
Like they don't make evidence just apear or disapear as the case may require. Prove you didn't send that email. HA Ha.
How much are the companies paying the goverment to crack down on copyright violations? I mean come on, cost of gas is insane, my bills keep going up, my income remains about the same and they expect us to afford to goto movies and go out? I just heard that airlines are going to increase fares as much as triple current rates to cover their costs. I guess I will be taking the train unless i take a trip out of the country. I have friends thinking about moving to Europe, England or Germany are their top choices. Funny England was the reason for the USA and now for some it is the solution to the problems in the US
Just as the FBI does not have permission to monitor every phone call, they should not have access to every piece of data on the internet.
a clear violation of constitutional rights - but the question is if congress and supreme court will uphold them..
In general, it will just mean better encryption for those that need it, so they won't be looking at YOUR data unless they spend time decoding it.
Bottom line is that the FBI will only catch those who don't protect themselves..
For all this talk of government-sponsored databases and ID cards and tracking, why would they bother? The average citizen has already (and gleefully so) given themselves over to the grid. Why does government need to make a database to keep tabs when:
* millions have already identified themselves via MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube, and hundreds others. We know everything about you, your favorite colors, who you associate with, even what you're listening to and what you love to buy.
* millions have GPS-enabled cellphones and automobiles, all DESIGNED to track movements and help others keep in touch with them whenever and where ever they are.
* need to keep track of neighbors? how about instant communication via cellphone messaging, internet boards, community listings, hell even sex offender tracking. its easier than ordering a pizza!
...and its not getting any better! Every day, new trash-people post dozens of criminally minded videos to any number of video websites. Need white-trash girls beating the heck out of each other? Preteens threatening the president? Babies getting high? Check...all through easily trackable, easy-to-post videos. Thank you, America!
Frankly, I'm not concerned about the government poking its nose in on me because I'm NOT DOING ANYTHING wrong. Considering this is Cnet, I'd assume that most users are familiar with at least one crime-breaking piece of software and regularly partake from the well of 'free software/music/film' known as bittorent or something similar. How's that working out for ya?
Although I'd rather not have my privacy violated, every single time I hear about kids exploited in kiddy porn or innocents violated and posted online (not to mention 99% of every single talkback ever posted degenerating into childish babble), I can't help but think that something needs to be done. If you don't agree, then I must say you're made of sterner stuff.
Your attitude does not belong in the land of the free. It belongs in North Korea or the old USSR. Your safety is not my problem and sure isn't worth my freedom. I wouldn't die to make a complete stranger safe, but I would die to make sure they were free.
The soldiers we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't sign up to make you feel safe loserguy, they died to preserve yours, my, everyone's freedom.
Hitler kept his people safe, so long as they weren't "doing anything wrong" and by that I mean, not being a Jew or Gypsy, or being a dissenter.
When they decide to bust down your door and haul you away, all because of some electrons on a wire, and some bits of magnetic material is all the evidence they need to confiscate everything you own. How can you think this power would not be abused?
You may be a loser enough to never gain their attention, but people fighting for freedom and justice against the rich, greedy, powerful, and corrupt, will suffer gross injustices, when all they have to do is create the electronic evidence to convict you.
If they decide that you breathing free air is wrong, will you go quietly? Why not just go now? I'll send you the handcuffs, and evidence to convict you in my next E-Mail....
I have a friend with no priors that had to go through diversion and drug treatment classes, had her licence suspended and car impounded, and now has a felony misdemeanor on her record, why? becasue a cop pulled her over and searched her car (she gave consent, thinking she had done nothing wrong), and the officer found a single dirty pill on the floorboard that was someone's (prior passengers) prescirption drug that they had dropped. The police officers actions are supported completely by law, but not a shread of common sense, or decency, and entirely motivated by greed, lots of bonuses paid for drug and DUII collars. You would think a decent judge would throw it out, but that would mean no money in fines either, and they had already gone to so much effort.....better get paid.
If everyone was as good and law abiding as you think you are, then we would not have so many prisons filled to capacity with so many non-violent, and 'victimless' crimes.
inadequate to the government of any other.
Adams, John
Thats coming from a Former Marine.
Im all for protection, but what you suggest is absurd.
We have way too many americans out there that want to be taken care of by someone else or the goverment. Or, the "why bother" crowd. Why don't protect yourself from things you don't want to see instead of making the rest of us pay for it via bigger taxes/goverment.
And being your NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG you wouldn't mind if one of us wanted to track you every move, where you go, where/who you spend time with, ect, heck we should just come over and stay the night and get every detail. Doesn't sound good? I understand if not; but it's cool if it someone from the goverment does, hu?
All your explaining/examples of Mypace, GPS, ect is not even in the ball park to what we're saying here; none of that is FORCED upon us, it's all choice.