Is This Actually True

[INRM]

Is it true that after 9/11 the government ordered networks to restructure their networks so that it would be easier for the government to hack into them if they wanted to, and even made it illegal to design networks that they could not easily get into?

INRM

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No.

[Fnord]

Yes ... sort of.

Using an encryption method that the gummint can not break to transfer files is an invitation to an "MIB" investigation. With that said, let me just state for the record that the birds fly south for the winter just before the first snow, that the black dogs bark at the full of the moon, and that Chambers' Market is running a special on pickled Atlantic oysters.

That is all.

[deep]

Is it true that after 9/11 the government ordered networks to restructure their networks so that it would be easier for the government to hack into them if they wanted to, and even made it illegal to design networks that they could not easily get into?


No, not that I'm aware of -- unless you're referring to warrantless wiretapping?

[Aepervius]

No, not that I'm aware of -- unless you're referring to warrantless wiretapping?

Probably. Like a modern version of the "postman" the news get so warped up that sooner or later it get changed into something like INRM posted ("postman" you whisper to the next child a sentence, and he does the same etc... at the end the sentence is completely changed. The game is called Arabic-telephone in french, I dunno how you call it in the US).

You would think that with WRITTEN communication (WWW) then this should not happen... But still does.

[zooterkin]

Yes ... sort of.

Using an encryption method that the gummint can not break to transfer files is an invitation to an "MIB" investigation.

But that was not something new following September 11.



With that said, let me just state for the record that the birds fly south for the winter just before the first snow, that the black dogs bark at the full of the moon, and that Chambers' Market is running a special on pickled Atlantic oysters.

That is all.

The red cow flies at midnight.

[Dancing David]

Is it true that after 9/11 the government ordered networks to restructure their networks so that it would be easier for the government to hack into them if they wanted to, and even made it illegal to design networks that they could not easily get into?

INRM


Hmmm, maybe you should cite a source for your idea?

[GreNME]

The answer is both yes and no.

No, the government didn't order networks to restructure to make eavesdropping easier after 9/11. They did request assistance, to which several telecos (like AT&T) decided to help out with. I'm sure there were the requisite "OMG Carnivore!!1!!eleventyone!!" threads when that became known. This isn't exactly a new development, since I know of one former telecom worker who used to install a similar device for voice systems 25+ years ago. For all their vaunted capabilities, it's unlikely that they're very effective at catching unknown threats because finding them would be harder than finding your proverbial needle in a haystack, even with the most modern of algorithms. Heck, if someone is able to put together algorithms suitable for finding those proverbial needles in the haystacks, then they're missing out on making bajilions in the private sector since Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and plenty of others would pay out the you-know-what for exclusivity of such talent.

[Fnord]

The red cow flies at midnight.

The bearded man never blinks.

:psmurf

[drzeus99]

The bearded man never blinks.

:psmurf

That's probably because he has no eyelids. The aliens came and surgically removed them with precision lasers.
This is what he looks like now ----> :eye-poppi (Sans beard. Laser removal too, I suppose)

They were getting tired of experimenting on cows and doing the whole crop circle hullabaloo

[Piggy]

With that said, let me just state for the record that the birds fly south for the winter just before the first snow

Schultz, you idiot... it's "The geese fly south before the first snow".

(Heh... I thought I was the only person in the world who remembered that line.)

[shadron]

Is it true that after 9/11 the government ordered networks to restructure their networks so that it would be easier for the government to hack into them if they wanted to,

Yes to that. As GrenME says, they weren't forced into it; they complied with a request after the government assured them that the president had a "finding" that it was legal in spite of never having been even presented to the FISA court charged with judging the propriety of security matters and he asserted the authority to make the request. That is the subject over which several entities, lead by the Electronic Freedom Foundation, is suing AT&T, and which suit GW tried to quash by congressional legislation before leaving office. See http://www.eff.org/cases/att, particularly Hepting vs AT&T.

The main whistleblower is Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician. His story is described in this Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110700006_2.html.

"Another document showed that the NSA installed in the room a semantic traffic analyzer made by Narus (www.narus.com (http://www.narus.com)), which Klein said indicated that the NSA was doing content analysis."

and even made it illegal to design networks that they could not easily get into?

INRMNo, not that I've ever heard. I must say, however, that there are still Top Secret laws on the books associated with the Patriot Act which may be judged decidedly prejudicial to freedom if they ever see the light of day. So I can't say an absolute "No" to that.

[arthwollipot]

That's probably because he has no eyelids. The aliens came and surgically removed them with precision lasers.
This is what he looks like now ----> :eye-poppi (Sans beard. Laser removal too, I suppose)

They were getting tired of experimenting on cows and doing the whole crop circle hullabalooYou're welcome.

[Matthew Cline]

Is it true that after 9/11 the government ordered networks to restructure their networks so that it would be easier for the government to hack into them if they wanted to, and even made it illegal to design networks that they could not easily get into?

If I recall correctly, the government wanted ISPs and online businesses to retain all records (logs) of customer activity for something like 5 to 7 years, so the government could subpoena them to look at activity from years ago while investigating someone in the present. That could have mutated via the "telephone game" ("postman game") type transmission of ideas into the rumor you heard.

[PaulJ]

Anyone who wants the low-down on all aspects of computer security should listen to the Security Now podcast (now over 200 weekly episodes), hosted by Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson. This has got to be the number one source of up-to-date security info, from two of the best communicators on the internet.

[Whiplash]

The bearded man never blinks.

:psmurf


The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains.

[I Ratant]

By Jove, listen for the dog not barking in the night!

[INRM]

Shadron,

No, not that I've ever heard. I must say, however, that there are still Top Secret laws on the books associated with the Patriot Act which may be judged decidedly prejudicial to freedom if they ever see the light of day.

Top Secret laws on the books? How is that even remotely Constitutional or even ethical if a law can be classified? How can anyone examine the law, question it, criticize it if it's actually a crime to know about it unless you have special security clearance?
(Hope I don't get a heart-attack or disappear or anything j/k)


INRM

[shadron]

Tell you what, INRM. Go to fas.org (as in Federation of American Scientists), and in the search column type "secret law" with the quotes. Start reading; there are several hundred stories.

The FAS is a watchdog organization which has many branches; in fact it is one of the stable repositories of Congressional Research Service reports, produced by the CRS at the behest of congressmen seeking research. These reports, paid for by you, are not distributed by the CRS they are also "sensitive". However, the FAS gets most all of them, and displays them on its website; some are very interesting reading. Also, you will find few places on the net where US, NATO and OpFor weapons are examined in more detail. Lots of good stuff there.

There's one spectacular story about a former conservative Idaho state legislator who tried to board a plan about three years ago. She was refused entrance to the airplane, and the federal inspector refused to tell her why, and did so with an arrogance that was just breathtaking. It turns out that the rules under which the inspectors operate are secret, and while being regulations, they have the effect of law. Just one example.

Most of the law about the status of the prisoners and what/how they are accused is secret. That often means that when they get to the point of a trial, they are not allowed to know what they are convicted of; they can't question (or even know the identity of) the witnesses. That makes the tribunals a kangaroo court, or at least transcripts tend to indicate that. If they manage to secure an attorney, trial is delayed while their lawyers and the judges are cleared so they can even find out what they are being held for, if the gov decides they can then release it and it's not too hot for even that level.

[INRM]

Shadron,

What's the difference between a law and a regulation?

[ddt]

There's one spectacular story about a former conservative Idaho state legislator who tried to board a plan about three years ago. She was refused entrance to the airplane, and the federal inspector refused to tell her why, and did so with an arrogance that was just breathtaking. It turns out that the rules under which the inspectors operate are secret, and while being regulations, they have the effect of law. Just one example.

Aren't you thinking of John Gilmore, one of the founders of the EFF? (link (http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/index.html)). He wanted to board a domestic flight, and was refused without ID. And he really doesn't have a driver's license nor a passport.

[shadron]

Shadron,

What's the difference between a law and a regulation?

A law is that written and passed by a legislature. A regulation is written by the executive branch in pursuit of some generalized law. For example, congress passed the clean air act, and a large part of it was simply a mandate upon the EPA, and executive branch department, to write regulations to implement congress' intent and then to execute them. The intent is to place the work upon the people who are best qualified to make the rules - the EPA is full of scientists, while congress isn't.

[shadron]

Aren't you thinking of John Gilmore, one of the founders of the EFF? (link (http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/index.html)). He wanted to board a domestic flight, and was refused without ID. And he really doesn't have a driver's license nor a passport.

November 2004:

"FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN CHALLENGES AIRPORT PAT-DOWN. Former congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage refused to be patted down at an airport after security officials denied her request to see the secret regulation (http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041010/NEWS010702/410100330/1024) that requires such secondary screening, The Idaho Statesman reported. Because she refused to submit to the pat-down, Chenoweth-Hage was not allowed to board the plane."

From Wikipedia:
After leaving Congress, Chenoweth-Hage continued to make headlines. In 2003 at the Boise Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_Airport) she was selected by the Transportation Security Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration) for a hand search before they would permit her to board a plane for her Nevada home. Chenoweth-Hage requested to see a copy of the regulation granting United States Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security) the authority to search her without cause. When the request was denied, she refused to submit to the search and elected to make the 300-mile (480 km) trip by rental car. "Our borders are wide open and yet they're shaking down a 66-year-old white grandmother they greeted by name," she said of the incident. "It's time the American people say no to this kind of invasion. It's a question of personal privacy. There shouldn't be that kind of search without reasonable cause."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Chenoweth-Hage#cite_note-airport-6)

[ddt]

Thanks shadron. Didn't know about that case.

[INRM]

Shadron,

A law is that written and passed by a legislature. A regulation is written by the executive branch in pursuit of some generalized law. For example, congress passed the clean air act, and a large part of it was simply a mandate upon the EPA, and executive branch department, to write regulations to implement congress' intent and then to execute them. The intent is to place the work upon the people who are best qualified to make the rules - the EPA is full of scientists, while congress isn't.

But if regulations have the effect of law what stops the executive branch from writing regulations on anything they feel like to avoid having to deal with going through Congress?


INRM

[shadron]

Shadron,



But if regulations have the effect of law what stops the executive branch from writing regulations on anything they feel like to avoid having to deal with going through Congress?


INRM

If they write outside the legislative mandate, then the courts will judge the eirther that the regulations not effective and will simply not enforce their application, or they will uphold suits against the regulations. Only the legislative branch has the ability to create law; the executive branch is designed to execute the laws, and the judicial branch reviews and interprets the laws.This is effectively how the courts have always acted, in interpreting legislation under judicial review.

Of course, these are fine points, and it often happens that one branch or another will overstep their limitations and try to encroach upon one or both of the others.

[INRM]

Shadron,

If they write outside the legislative mandate, then the courts will judge the eirther that the regulations not effective and will simply not enforce their application, or they will uphold suits against the regulations.

Assuming they even aware of the regulations...

Of course, these are fine points, and it often happens that one branch or another will overstep their limitations and try to encroach upon one or both of the others.

Of course

[shadron]

Shadron,

Assuming they even aware of the regulations...

What, don't you trust the lawyers to make their cases?