On Feb. 27th, 2012, Ellen Nakashima wrote two extremely interesting articles for the Washington Post on the NSA's desire to monitor private networks.  The articles were split in two (the first titled White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy; the second titled When is a cyberattack a matter of defense?), but the content was similar. 

According to the first article (White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy), the NSA wanted to expand its role in protecting US private companies by monitoring domestic US networks.  The specific proposal, called Tranche 2, would have allowed the NSA to monitor the networks of 300 to 500 US critical infrastructure providers.  Again, the focus of the proposal was on critical infrastructure providers, not US domestic networks in general.  Under the proposal, the NSA would look for malicious traffic evidencing a potential cyber-attack; once the NSA found it, the private companies would have to turn over that evidence to the government.

The proposal would have supplemented the Obama administration's cybersecurity legislation.  However, the Obama administration didn't like the NSA's plan. The article noted that the White House and DOJ thought that the proposal "would permit unprecedented government monitoring of routine civilian Internet activity."  The proposal was ultimately shot down.  

Needless to say, the Obama administration's response didn't sit well with the NSA.  You may remember recent remarks from Gen. Keith Alexander (CyberComm/NSA head) calling for broader NSA power to monitor domestic networks.  Well, apparently the White House "cautioned the NSA" that President Obama had already opposed those very same measures and "warned . . . Gen. Keith Alexander to restrain his public comments after speeches in which he argued that more expansive legal authority was necessary . . ." 

The WashPo article even quoted an administration official who had to remind Gen. Alexander that his policy positions could undermine the commander-in-chief.       

For what it's worth, the NSA maintained that the proposal would have protected privacy; the process would have been automated and identifying "specific Internet users would have been blocked."  Again, just to stress this (as the article did), this proposal would not have allowed for private-sector Internet traffic monitoring outside of those critical infrastructure networks. 

A Crossroads blog post isn't complete without a James Lewis (CSIS) quote.  The article quoted Lewis as saying that he trusts the NSA, but “the oversight we have in place isn’t enough to reassure everyone the data are not being used for other purposes.”

You can find the first Washington Post article here.

***

The second WashPo article (When is a cyberattack a matter of defense?) dealt with the concept of active defenses.  Again, this second article dealt with much the same information as the first, it just looked at it differently. 

As for the aforementioned NSA proposal, it would have allowed the government to use active defenses to block computer viruses attacking private sector networks.  The DOD defines active defenses as a “synchronized, real time capability to discover, detect, analyze and mitigate threats and capabilities.”

The article explained that the Obama administration didn't like the idea of active defenses because its scope and effects were unclear.  In effect, the Obama administration was afraid of authorizing widespread government monitoring of domestic networks.

There's a lot more to the second Washington Post article.  Check it out here.

On Feb. 27th, 2012, Ellen Nakashima wrote two extremely interesting articles for the Washington Post on the NSA's desire to monitor private networks.  The articles were split in two (the first titled White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy; the second titled When is a cyberattack a matter of defense?), but the content was similar. 

According to the first article (White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy), the NSA wanted to expand its role in protecting US private companies by monitoring domestic US networks.  The specific proposal, called Tranche 2, would have allowed the NSA to monitor the networks of 300 to 500 US critical infrastructure providers.  Again, the focus of the proposal was on critical infrastructure providers, not US domestic networks in general.  Under the proposal, the NSA would look for malicious traffic evidencing a potential cyber-attack; once the NSA found it, the private companies would have to turn over that evidence to the government.

The proposal would have supplemented the Obama administration's cybersecurity legislation.  However, the Obama administration didn't like the NSA's plan. The article noted that the White House and DOJ thought that the proposal "would permit unprecedented government monitoring of routine civilian Internet activity."  The proposal was ultimately shot down.  

Needless to say, the Obama administration's response didn't sit well with the NSA.  You may remember recent remarks from Gen. Keith Alexander (CyberComm/NSA head) calling for broader NSA power to monitor domestic networks.  Well, apparently the White House "cautioned the NSA" that President Obama had already opposed those very same measures and "warned . . . Gen. Keith Alexander to restrain his public comments after speeches in which he argued that more expansive legal authority was necessary . . ." 

The WashPo article even quoted an administration official who had to remind Gen. Alexander that his policy positions could undermine the commander-in-chief.       

For what it's worth, the NSA maintained that the proposal would have protected privacy; the process would have been automated and identifying "specific Internet users would have been blocked."  Again, just to stress this (as the article did), this proposal would not have allowed for private-sector Internet traffic monitoring outside of those critical infrastructure networks. 

A Crossroads blog post isn't complete without a James Lewis (CSIS) quote.  The article quoted Lewis as saying that he trusts the NSA, but “the oversight we have in place isn’t enough to reassure everyone the data are not being used for other purposes.”

You can find the first Washington Post article here.

***

The second WashPo article (When is a cyberattack a matter of defense?) dealt with the concept of active defenses.  Again, this second article dealt with much the same information as the first, it just looked at it differently. 

As for the aforementioned NSA proposal, it would have allowed the government to use active defenses to block computer viruses attacking private sector networks.  The DOD defines active defenses as a “synchronized, real time capability to discover, detect, analyze and mitigate threats and capabilities.”

The article explained that the Obama administration didn't like the idea of active defenses because its scope and effects were unclear.  In effect, the Obama administration was afraid of authorizing widespread government monitoring of domestic networks.

There's a lot more to the second Washington Post article.  Check it out here.