First let me say this, my credentials are that I'm a Computer Scientist with 12 years experience in both the programming and networking fields. I've done extensive programming, security and networking for large-scale projects of universities, government and the private sector.
Part 1: Government Monitoring, intercepting and regulating traffic and protocols in the private sector
A recent report entitled Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure just came out of the White House.
This is BAD, BAD, BAD!! Unconstitutional in almost every sense. Please read this series, as it is VERY IMPORTANT in that even the lay person to computing, networking, security etc. are aware of how the government is using it as a guise for control and tracking your every move.
1.1 Analyzing the review Preface
The report starts out:
"Cyberspace touches practically everything and everyone. It provides a platform for innovation and prosperity and the means to improve general welfare around the globe. But with the broad reach of a loose and lightly regulated digital infrastructure, great risks threaten nations, private enterprises, and individual rights. The government has a responsibility to address these strategic vulnerabilities to ensure that the United States and its citizens, together with the larger community of nations, can realize the full potential of the information technology revolution."
So, right out of the gate, the scope is set for the Cybersecurity bill, being hurried through Congress by Senator Jay Rockefeller, in that because Cyberspace applies to nearly everyone, the government should therefore be the watchdog and "regulate" it. You can see, security is used as a guise to facilitate and excuse this ridiculous imposition on private networks or "government intrusion".
The problem here is, we already have SSL to encrypt and protect sites on the Web. Many Congressman don't even know what SSL is (trust me), and wouldn't have a clue, and because of that, may sound like a good thing to them if pressured enough (though many are bought or threatened to vote in a certain way). Not-to-mention, most businesses have at least one IT administrator and/or security analyst and services to protect their web sites.
Any sensitive transactions done over the Web, mostly use SSL, whether it is from a private-to-private site or private to government site. SSL has been around at least 10 years, and has not been compromised once. All security breaches usually happen from within the business or government (with clearance they should not have), or through e-mails and chat delivering "Trojans", which allow back-doors through a Firewall. A Firewall is a term used describe protection of a network on the Internet. Government systems have the WORST security and should stick to improving that only. The government has NO BUSINESS messing with or regulating private networks, connections and monitoring traffic. Several private security firms have graded government security as a "D" in the recent past, with private networks scoring much higher! Now, the government is telling us they have a panel of high-paid experts to push this insidious agenda on the American public, and so we should take their word for it?
Truth be told, any real sensitive government classified information should be OFF THE INTERNET completely. It should not be anywhere close to the Internet, and as such, accessible to any private networks on the Internet. Why was Obama's Chief Technology Officer's (CTO) (one he appointed) office raided by the FBI a few months ago? Remember, most breaches happen from the INSIDE. Now we're supposed to listen to this administration about taking over the US Internet under the guise of increased security? It's almost as bad as Al Gore stating he invented the Internet. Unbelievable.
Beginning second paragraph of this review, starting with this sentence, it states:
"The architecture of the Nation’s digital infrastructure, based largely upon the Internet, is not secure or resilient."
WRONG! Why don't we reword that to a more accurate phrase as in "The architecture of the Nation’s GOVERNMENT digital infrastructure, based largely upon the Internet, is not secure or resilient.
Paragraph four says this:
"Information and communications networks are largely owned and operated by the private sector, both nationally and internationally. Thus, addressing network security issues requires a public-private partnership as well as international cooperation and norms."
Private-public sector partnership? This is already the case. The government in the past and up to this point, has hired on private partners through grants and contracts to address these security issues. What kind of new partnership are you talking about here, that wouldn't already be included in the current model?
1.2 Analyzing the review Executive Summary
"It is the fundamental responsibility of our government to address strategic vulnerabilities in cyberspace and ensure that the United States and the world realize the full potential of the information technology revolution."
It IS NOT the government's responsibility to make sure the US and the world realize the full potential of the information technology revolution! The government has no business becoming an innovator and directing everyone to adhere to government protocols. In this context, you would be saying that free market and free enterprise would not have a stake in innovating new technologies, unless a private business is regulated, controlled and a partner of the government. COMMUNISM. This is EXACTLY how Communist countries like China do it.
Beginning Paragraph 2:
"The status quo is no longer acceptable. The United States must signal to the world that it is serious about addressing this challenge with strong leadership and vision. Leadership should be elevated and strongly anchored within the White House to provide direction, coordinate action, and achieve results."
The White House has NO BUSINESS providing leadership and direction of the US Internet! NONE! The only results, the Obama administration and his appointers want to achieve, is full control over your Internet activity, making sure YOU comply with what the government wants.