Does Einstein 3 threaten citizen privacy?
Some observers are worried about privacy issues involved in Einstein 3, the new government program aimed at detecting and preventing cyber-attacks on U.S. government computer systems.
The new program, which is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security under the watchful eye of the Obama administration, has triggered worries that the rights of innocent civilians would be violated if the program were to go live. The pilot program was to have started in February, but the DHS is moving slowly, trying to insure a valid compromise between honoring the rights of citizens and protecting government computer installations.
Critics are primarily worried about the involvement of the National Security Administration, the primary agency used by the Bush administration to spy on U.S. citizens. Any involvement of the NSA in the cyber-defense program worries privacy and civil liberties groups, who oppose giving such control to U.S. spy agencies, especially given the electronic intelligence gathering abilities of the NSA and the uses to which that expertise has been put in recent years.
DHS officials have said that the the new project will be managed and overseen strictly by their agency, though it will use technology developed by the NSA, and that Einstein 3 will only involve the protection of government computers. Still, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has said, “The NSA will provide technical assistance. We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones that NSA has.”
Einstein 3, the successor to Einstein 1, would be designed to not only detect intrusions, but to stop them, according to an AP story. The program is intended to prevent any malicious computer programs from getting into government networks and to stop any data theft or damage from occurring on those systems. DHS has said that the focus of the monitoring and prevention program is not the content of e-mails, but any damaging code attached to e-mails that could infect the system or steal information.
Ari Schwartz, a vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said last week, “There are a number of concerns that come with this process, the main one being how do you go about protecting the system in a way that insures you’re not monitoring private systems. I don’t have a full answer to that question. But the president made that pledge. That makes me more comfortable that it won’t happen.”
Citizens have a right to be worried after the wiretapping escapades and telephone record plundering that took place during the Bush years, among other abuses of citizen’s rights. Those memories are still very fresh. The Obama administration campaigned on a desire to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and Americans have every reason to be apprehensive until the administration proves that his statements were genuine, and not just politics as usual.
Related Posts:
March 5th, 2010
U.S. Government despite promises that Einstein 3 would not invade private email and other private communications in its fight against terrorists has habitually broken those promises in the past (NSA Spying) on private electronic communications that don’t involve terrorism and to arrest U.S. Citizens for alleged ordinary crimes.
Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what warrant-less NSA electronic surveillance under Bush II could be used by police or introduced into court by U.S. Government to prosecute Citizens and foreign businesses doing business in America. It appears NSA can share its electronic-domestic-spying with countless U.S. police agencies; including government contracted companies and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate criminal and civil prosecutions that may include forfeiture of Americans’ property—-to keep part of the assets. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s “wiretapped” hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed.
There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is required only to show “A preponderance of Evidence” to civilly forfeit assets. Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture.