General discussion

Locked

"security of the Internet requires that anonymity be driven out"

By Neon Samurai ·
"The security of the Internet requires that anonymity be driven out of the network, the top information-security officer for the U.S. Department of Defense told attendees at the Black Hat Security Conference."

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/989

This scares me.

I believe that the anonymity of the internet is the very life force that has made and continues to make it what it is. If we destroy that, we loose the very thing that is the Internet.

At the upper protocol level, there may be reason for less anonymity. The two ends of the connection should be able to authenticate each other. sFTP, HTTPS, POP3S, SMTPS; absolutely. The faster that clear text can die, the better.

They key here is retaining the anonymity in the TCP/IP layer. The only two people that should be able to read the data and identify the two end point entities are those two entities. Everyone in-between including the transport layer should not be able to identify anything more than the minimum amount of addressing information required to pass the data frames from one point too he next.

I say that this article scares me. I don't mean in a way to draw readers. I mean it is one of those articles where I read it and actually felt a physical shiver of dread.

Here is why; this is the opinion of high ranking people within the US Gov's Cybersecurity group. I don't think they are talking about providing safer application level protocols meant to provide users with encrypted end to end transfers. When they talk about how "anonymity must be driven out", I read that to mean a level of transparency to identify all on the network and monitor all data between endpoints. I get the feeling that this is from a military point of view where that kind of data visibility would be of benefit to the whims of authority at the expense of the user.

I hope I read this wrong or read too much healthy paranoia into it. Any thoughts on?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

They've been bought off by the Secure Computing Group to push their

by Deadly Ernest In reply to "security of the Internet ...

agenda and make billions for Intel, MS, and others in the SCG.

It is very interesting in that the original concept for which the Internet was built was to have a will without any in transit ID communications network - now some turkey says to do the opposite.

Collapse -

I think you're right.

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to "security of the Internet ...

I don't think they are talking about providing safer application level protocols meant to provide users with encrypted end to end transfers. When they talk about how "anonymity must be driven out", I read that to mean a level of transparency to identify all on the network and monitor all data between endpoints.

I think this an effort to exercise yet more control over the populace. What scares me is that if it ever came to 'a vote', I think it would be worded such that the populace would embrace it. What scares me more is that no matter how it's worded, a significant number of the populace won't understand what they're voting for.

Thanks Neon. I'm passing that around.

Collapse -

Why stage a coup d'etat....

by NotSoChiGuy In reply to I think you're right.

...when you can just get the citizenry to hand over free reign willingly??

Ever increasing gun control (without handling core problem of offenders)

Broader policing powers (oops, we broke down the wrong door, tasered gramps and killed the family dog...our bad)

Encroachments on the last bastion of true 'free speech' and anonymity

If I wanted this, there are plenty of PMO positions open in Hong Kong or Beijing for which I would have applied.

Collapse -

we can only stop terrorism if we have full control of your internet

by Neon Samurai In reply to Why stage a coup d'etat.. ...

.. now you good little FOX Infotainment viewers go to your assigned voting machine.

(replying to all in one comment):

In the user and other more free countries, it would be bad. Consider what it would do to China where one can be imprisoned indefinitely for having the gaul to voice opinion or, shudder, view non-state-sanctioned data. In some cases, the inherent anonymity of the base internet layer is the only thing that has gotten accurate information out of the country. Consider the fellow from Graffiti Labs that went to the Bejing Olympics and spent a week in prison because they disagreed with his laser graffiti projector. The only thing keeping his family sane for that time was the information snuck out by humanitarian groups if I remember correctly.

Collapse -

Security of the internet, or securing state control from the internet

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to "security of the Internet ...

It will help in the wars on terror, drugs, child porn, poverty, only a criminal could possibly disagree with it.

Organisations like the Gestapo, and the KGB would have been in complete agreement....

Your paranoia is completely justified, very healthy and in the long term good of the state, unlike this f'ing totalitarian twit.

Back to Networks Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums