Does 'Cyber-Security' Mean More NSA Dragnet Surveillance?

from the fox-guarding-the-henhouse dept

As network infrastructure has become an increasingly important part of our economy, there's been growing concern about the problems of cybersecurity. So far, the key debate is over whether the government should be involved in helping the private sector secure its networks or should focus on government networks. But another important question is which part of the government should be in charge of cyber-security. We're in the midst of a bureaucratic turf war between the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency over who will be in charge of government cybersecurity policy. The NSA's head, Keith Alexander, is pushing the theory that cyber-security is a "national security issue," and that therefore an intelligence agency like the NSA ought to be in charge of it.

The problem with this is that the NSA has a peculiar definition of cyber-security. When most of us talk about cyber-security, we mean securing our communications against intrusion by third parties, including the government. Yet the NSA has made no secret of its belief that "cyber security" means being able to spy on people more easily. Moreover, as Amit Yoran, former head of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cyber Security Division, points out, the NSA's penchant for secrecy, and concomitant lack of transparency, will be counterproductive in the effort to secure ordinary commercial networks. Therefore, the fight between DHS and the NSA is more than just a bureaucratic squabble. There's plenty to criticize about the Department of Homeland Security, and reasons to doubt whether they should be helping to secure private sector networks at all. But at least DHS is relatively transparent, and (as far as we know) doesn't engage in the kind of indiscriminate, warrantless wiretapping for which the NSA has become notorious.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DHS Reveals Policies For Searching Laptops At The Border: Anything Goes

from the privacy-schmivacy dept

After courts repeatedly have ruled that border patrol customs agents can look through your computer hard drive, or even confiscate your computer, with no reasonable cause whatsoever, pressure from groups like the EFF have convinced Congress to investigate. As part of this process, the Department of Homeland Security has revealed its policies for border searches of electronic devices, and as you'd imagine, the policies are basically: "border patrol can do whatever it wants."

It does not need any reasonable cause. It take away your laptop for as long as it wants. It can copy the contents of your laptop and even share it with both other federal agencies and private entities for "language translation, data decryption or other reasons." Other reasons seems a bit broad.

We already explained how ridiculous the defense of this police was last month, by noting that it's not as if stopping this content at the border will actually prevent it from getting in the country. At that time we also pointed out how silly it was for a DHS supporter to claim that reasonable cause shouldn't be necessary because that's just not practical. That guy was unable to explain why it is practical throughout the rest of the country not to randomly search laptops, but at the border, suddenly it's not. However, this article now includes another defense from a customs official, saying that these searches "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." How do we know? Apparently, we just have to trust the DHS.

Luckily, this appears to be getting some attention from Congressional representatives who find the whole thing troublesome. The article notes that legislation to stop such searches will be forthcoming soon.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DHS Declares H-1B State Of Emergency; Allows Foreign Students To Stick Around Longer

from the better-than-kicking-them-out dept

theodp writes "Deeming the possible loss of foreign grads with technical bachelor's degrees a serious threat to the U.S. requiring immediate action on its part, the Department of Homeland Security changed immigration rules without notice or comment Friday to allow foreign students to stay on to work in the States for two-and-a-half years after graduation without needing an H-1B visa."

To clarify a bit, DHS has basically realized that the H-1B visas were quickly used up almost immediately again, and that would cause problems for students who have been here on F-1 student visas, and have recently received jobs in the US. DHS's extension here makes a lot of sense. It only applies to students who recently graduated with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (i.e., skilled individuals) who are employed by companies that already review the eligibility of employees electronically with the DHS. Since it's become increasingly difficult to get an H-1B visa, these recent skilled college grads would lose their jobs and get sent out of the country. That wouldn't do anyone any good. It would hurt US companies by forcing them to lose recently hired skilled employees, and it would hurt US competitiveness by having those same students return to their home countries, where they're more likely to work for foreign companies competing against US companies.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New DHS Strategy On Real ID: We'll Just Pretend Everyone Implemented It

from the hell-no-means-yes dept

The Department of Homeland Security had been threatening that drivers' licenses in certain states wouldn't be valid federal IDs if states didn't promise by the end of March to implement the troubled Real ID rules. However, somewhere along the line (with a handful of states vehemently protesting the rules), it appears that Secretary Chertoff and the DHS simply decided that it would pretend every state agreed to implement Real ID and deal with reality later. DHS put out a press release claiming that all states had met the "initial requirements" for Real ID, and even painted its silly map green to show "compliance." The problem is that this simply isn't true. It looks as though DHS simply decided that any communication, even if it was to tell the DHS that there was no chance the state would implement Real ID, would be read as if it were the state agreeing to enact Real ID's rules. The whole thing is rather comical until you realize these are the folks who are supposed to be protecting the country.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..