Re: Cyberwar - Privacy May Be a Victim in Cyberdefense Plan - Series - NYTimes.com

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stewart Baker <stewart.baker () gmail com>
Date: June 13, 2009 10:26:21 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Cyberwar - Privacy May Be a Victim in Cyberdefense  
Plan -  Series - NYTimes.com

My take as blogged on homelandreadinglist:

The Washington Post decides that the new cyber-command is mainly  
interesting because it is an opportunity to raise privacy concerns.  
Here's the lead:

The Pentagon's development of a "cyber-command" is prompting questions
about its role in the larger national strategy to protect government
and private-sector computer networks and whether privacy can be
protected. And the command is fueling debate over the proper rules to
govern a new kind of warfare in which unannounced adversaries using
bits of computer code can launch transnational attacks.

We're actually closer to 1984 than most people realize. Antidemocratic  
forces have the ability to turn on cameras in our homes and offices --  
to monitor our every action and every keystroke. That's the lesson of  
the ghostnet report. http://www.scribd.com/doc/13731776/Tracking-GhostNet-Investigating-a-Cyber-Espionage-Network

But you won't find any sign of that problem in today's story.

That's because the 1984ish powers aren't being exercised by the US  
government or NSA. And apparently there's no room in the Post for a  
story that doesn't make the US and NSA the chief privacy villains.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:35 AM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/us/politics/13cyber.html?hpw


Archives        



--
Stewart Baker
202-641-8670




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com