To combat cyberattacks, the U.S. may need more than new cyberdefenses. It might need a whole new piece of Internet infrastructure.
So says former CIA director Michael Hayden, who served under President G.W. Bush, and he’s not the only one. Several lawmakers and the current Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander are toying with the notion of creating a “.secure” domain where Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are voluntarily foregone in order to keep that corner of the Internet free of cyber criminals.
The idea goes something like this: China and other regimes around the world inherently have an upper hand when it comes to cyber defense because their lack of civil liberty protections lets the government freely monitor online activity. Things like “deep packet inspection” (which gained notoriety during Iranian election protests back in 2009) that let governments monitor citizens traffic also let them monitor for unusual activity.
That activity could be cyber criminals at work, or it could be foreign-backed cyber warriors and cyber spies working to weaken a nation’s infrastructure or penetrate sensitive government systems. Regardless, other countries are better protected.
The U.S. Internet, by virtue of its adherence civil liberties, is more like the wild west. Everyone does everything online anonymously, and while that’s great for liberties, it’s also dangerous when cyber criminals/foreign hackers are roaming the cyber countryside.
The proposed solution: a dot-secure safe zone (basically, a separate Internet) where things like financial institutions, sensitive infrastructure, government contractors, and the government itself can hide behind heavier defenses.
Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn’t apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport, users would have to show detailed identification and credentials to get in. Those who want to remain anonymous on the Web can still frolic about in the world of dot-com, but in the dot-secure realm you would have to prove you are you.
A wise man once warned about giving up a little liberty for a little security, but a tiered Internet with varying levels of freedom, security, and anonymity may be the way the Internet goes in the end. The Obama administration and members of Congress are finally taking cybersecurity quite seriously it appears, and big-league legislation is likely imminent.
When the dust settles, you may not be able to go to certain neighborhoods of the Web without showing your papers at a checkpoint–and perhaps subjecting yourself to one of those humiliating electronic pat-downs as well.
(Source: Fox News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
About time the government took action to protect sensitive information. This second type of internet is not intended for the everyday user of news such as this site or checking your emails. This is for government, financial, utilities or firms that require this higher level of security.
This actually looks like an excuse for “Big Brother” to monitor us citizens even more than they do already under the pretence of “cyber safety”
This is an interesting idea. Keep in mind that initially we volunteered to work for Pharaoh; to show how patriotic we were. Once we were inside the work system, voluntary soon turned into mandatory and we became slaves. An idea must be judged on its merits but it must also be judged by who will implement the idea. Considering the nature of people in Government, this does not bode well for this staying voluntary or being just one of many possibilities.
Aryeh Zelasko
Beit Shemesh
The Government has had dozens of such networks for decades at various levels of security from unclassified to “cleared to weird”.
Even their unclassified network (NIPRnet) is continuously monitored. A pop-up screen shows up every time a user signs on that says by clicking OK you consent to Government monitoring.
All but NIPRNet are totally isolated from the rest of the world.
Just as there is a separate Federal Telephone System there should be a separate Federal Internet. Government secrets should remain secure. Just as you wouldn’t want some hacker calling the War Room at the Pentagon and launching the missiles, you don’t want just anyone to get onto the Federal Internet. When I worked for the government, I once accidentally dialed the War Room.
As to banks and financial institutions and other businesses, their security is up to them. When I worked at JP Morgan I proposed that each desk have two ethernet ports; one for the internet and the other for the internal network, and that no device be attached to both simultaneously. My advice was not taken at the time, because it would cost twice as much. One good hacker could cost them a lot more than that.
So if banks were on this, my Fourth Amendment rights to not have the government snooping around my bank statements would be forfeited? No thanks. If the government wants to poke around my life, it can get a warrant.