[133501] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Operational] Internet Police
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Smith)
Fri Dec 10 11:54:21 2010
In-Reply-To: <4D025973.4030709@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:54:16 -0500
From: Michael Smith <michael@hmsjr.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
> We *really* don't need Homeland Security and TSA deciding that
> cyber-vandalism falls into the realm of terrorism and thus comes under their
> purview to "protect us against". Their security theater at the airport is
> too much already, I can't begin to imagine how badly they could screw it up
> if they had a mandate to implement similar "protective" processes on the
> internet.
>
> jc
>
>
>
Now, we're getting to the original question. If the Federal Govt decides
that state secrets and ability to conduct commerce raise this to the level
of a "global guerrilla war", we can all laugh it off for its absurity, but
I'm curious what architectural and operational decisions will be if we are
*ordered* to consider what options are available... ..or... would it simply
be a NSA/DoD appliance that we're all required to place in-line....?...
