http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/fidnet.html
FIDNET: Will Big Brother Be Watching You?
Federal government's proposed network monitoring scheme threatens privacy, offers little in return.
by Patricia Fusco
ISP-Planet Managing Editor
[August 10, 1999]
If U.S. Vice-president and presidential-wannabe Al Gore can publicly identify himself a patriarch of the Internet, then President Bill Clinton may well go down in history as the sire of "Big Brother."
Those of you unfamiliar with the all-knowing totalitarian depicted in George Orwell's novel 1984 might want to familiarize yourself with the British author's rendering of "Big Brother" as an absolute, omnipresent, and automated antithesis to democracy.
What makes Mr. Clinton a candidate for the Orwellian epithet? Consider his administration's proposal for constructing a computer system capable of monitoring all data networks in the U.S.:
Security over privacy
As prescribed by the White House plan, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be charged with the task of scouring the nation's networks for intruders through a Federal Intrusion Detection Network—FIDNET. Its assignment: Notify the government of all computer attacks that could damage national operations or the American economy.
This network policing initiative takes aim at protecting the federal government's massive computer systems and infrastructure from attack. A spokesperson for the administration said that the "President is committed to doing what we need to do to protect our infrastructure, while at the same time balancing the need for privacy.''
Entrusting the FBI to protect both state and private networks means that FIDNET would be built around a "netted" intrusion detection system for non-Department of Defense government computers.
Omniscient system
Modeled after the DOD system, intrusion detection monitors installed on networks are connected, so that all FIDNET sites would automatically recognize a particular intruder or distinct intrusion technique utilized in any given attack.
The FBI will sit at the center of the system, where the filtered data from network sensors are channeled through the newly created National Infrastructure Protection Center. Ultimately, the plan calls for similar monitoring sensors to be installed on private-sector information systems.
Outside the Clinton White House, the FBI is not widely recognized as a principal conservator of civil liberties. Perhaps the administration would like to be able to reinvent history at will, just as Orwell's "Party" did through its "Ministry of Truth" in 1984.
Those bleeding hearts
The Center for Democracy and Technology was quick to criticize the FIDNET plan for trampling upon the civil liberties of netizens nationwide. According to the CDT the White House clearly recognizes that privacy is undermined by FIDNET, but the government seems convinced it possesses eminent domain over essential network operations.
The CDT believes protecting private networks is best left to the private sector. The organization said that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act already allows for system owners to monitor the use of their private networks in order to protect themselves from outside forces. The CDT contends that melding a military function with a civilian watch guard can only produce ill-favored results.
But the CDT's primary concern is that the plan places network monitoring and surveillance in the hands of a policing agency that is not well suited for such a vocation. Do you really want the folks who brought you the Branch Davidian fiasco poking around your network?
Other civil liberties groups criticized the proposed FIDNET system because a nationwide surveillance infrastructure would be ripe with the potential for abuse. FIDNET itself would most likely be vulnerable to security breaches and prone to constant attack.
Can't fight back
Although FIDNET has the commendable goal of alerting officials to unfriendly raids, the scheme is not designed to stop an assault that could cripple government activities—or the American economy. Without the ability to hinder network-choking activities, the FIDNET plan is analogous to hiring "Chicken Little" to broadcast a weather report. What's the point of telling everyone the "sky is falling" if you don't have an atmospheric repair kit handy?
Not to belittle the notion that computer terrorism poses a serious threat to state and private networks, eroding civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism does not justify sacrificing privacy.
In Orwell's 1984, "Party" lies are designed to uphold the ruling truths that "Freedom is Slavery," "War is Peace," and "Ignorance is Strength." In 1999, the Clinton Administration appears to be designing FIDNET to vindicate the political truths that "Access Guarantees Privacy," "Terrorism Begets Security," and "Networks are Eminent Domain."
—End
