Whitehouse "dissident" web site monitoring?

Tue Sep 12 14:07:34 PDT 1995

>To: cypherpunks at toad.com
>From: an215712 at anon.penet.fi
>X-Anonymously-To: cypherpunks at toad.com
>Organization: Anonymous forwarding service
>Reply-To: an215712 at anon.penet.fi
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 17:17:15 UTC
>Subject: Whitehouse "dissident" web site monitoring?
>
>- ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>      WHITE HOUSE MONITORING OF DISSIDENTS ON THE INTERNET
>
>
>    The  National  Security   Agency   presumably   can   monitor
>subversive  communication  on  the  Internet  without leaving any
>trace  by  "sniffing  packets"  at  traffic  nodes.  For   purely
>political  purposes, however, the White House may be forced to do
>the monitoring in-house,  which  means  that  they  leave  traces
>everywhere they go.
>
>    With  just  a  superficial  search  for  such   traces,   The
>Washington   Weekly   has   uncovered   intensive  monitoring  of
>"dissident" Internet sites by the White House.
>
>    It turns out that computers from inside the White House  have
>kept  pretty  good  tabs  on information available on Whitewater,
>Vince Foster, and Mena at a few key repositories  on  the  World-
>Wide Web, a subset of the Internet.
>
>    Just  three  such  sites:  "The   Washington   Weekly,   "The
>Whitewater  Scandal  Home  Page" and "Whitewater & Vince Foster,"
>were accessed 128 times by  four  computers  from  the  Executive
>Office  of the President between August 28 and August 31.  If the
>White House is showing a similar interest in other sites  on  the
>World  Wide  Web,  that would amount to a monitoring operation of
>considerable magnitude. Tim Brady of the  Yahoo!  World-Wide  Web
>index  says  that his company alone has indexed approximately 725
>political  sites.  That  monitoring  effort  would  be   nothing,
>however,  compared  to  the  effort  required to follow all anti-
>Clinton discussion on the Usenet, another subset of the Internet.
>
>    The White House did  not  respond  to  an  inquiry  (attached
>below)   asking  for  an  explanation  and  asking  whether  this
>constituted "casual browsing."
>
>    Interestingly, the week after the  White  House  snooping  of
>files,  which included a series of articles by J. Orlin Grabbe on
>Vince Foster's ties  to  the  NSA,  the  following  little  piece
>appeared in Newsweek Magazine:
>
>  "Conspiracy theorists perked up when Deborah Gorham told Senate
>  Whitewater investigators in June that her boss, the late deputy
>  White House counsel Vince Foster, asked her  to  put two secret
>  notebooks  from  the  National Security Agency in a White House
>  safe. The suggestion that  Foster  dealt  with  the NSA sparked
>  feverish  speculation  on the  Internet that he was involved in
>  espionage. The reality appears more prosaic.  The  White  House
>  won't give details,  but  sources say Foster's files dealt with
>  legal questions about national emergencies...."
====================================================

During the Waco Hearings, Charles Schumer said he'd seen Foster's missing
file and all it had in it was a memorandum about "Linda Thompson and THAT tape."

Now, put that with the "sources say Foster's files dealt with legal
questions bout national emergencies . . . ." and I will presume that "THAT
tape" and I constitute a "national emergency."

Harumph.

At any rate, we've (AEN News) had a number of military-based sniffs here.

-- Linda

================================================

>    Does the White House follow anti-Clinton discussion on Usenet
>newsgroups just as closely?  The White House posts press releases
>to Usenet in collaboration with the Artificial  Intelligence  Lab
>at   Massachusetts   Institute  of  Technology.  But  MIT  System
>Administrator Bruce Walton says that the White House does not use
>the  same  server  for  reading netnews.  It would be difficult -
>although not impossible - to find the server that the White House
>uses  for  reading  or  receiving netnews and check for traces on
>that server.
>
>    Readers may be tempted to post a threat to the President on a
>newsgroup just to see if they get a visit from the Secret Service
>the next day. That experiment is not advisable. It is a  criminal
>offense.  But  Usenet  just might be a faster conduit for getting
>the attention of the administration than the email  address  that
>the White House has published for the president.
>
>Attachment:
>
>
>                      THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>August 31, 1995
>
>Virginia M. Terzano
>White House Office of the Press Secretary
>The White House
>
>
>Dear Ms. Terzano:
>
>    It has come to my attention that several dissident  sites  on
>the  World  Wide  Web  have been visited by White House computers
>this week.  Apparently,  all  information  regarding  Whitewater,
>Foster, and Mena has been transferred to White House computers.
>
>    Specifically, the sites,  
>
>"Washington Weekly" (http://www.federal.com),  
>"The Whitewater Scandal Home Page"
>(http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~crow/whitewater/)
>"Whitewater & Vince Foster" 
>(http://www.cris.com/~dwheeler/n/whitewater/whitewater-index.html)
>
>have  been  visited  by  White  House   computers   ist1.eop.gov,
>ist6.eop.gov, ist7.eop.gov, and gatekeeper.eop.gov between August
>28 and August 31, and a total of 128 files have been  transferred
>to those White House computers. For all sites, this constitutes a
>significant  increase  over  previous  access  by   White   House
>computers.
>
>    In light of this information, I have the following questions:
>
>(1) Does this constitute "casual browsing" by White House staff, or
>    is it, in light of the considerable time and effort spent during 
>    regular business hours, part of a monitoring or intelligence operation?
>
>(2) For what purpose is the information transferred to the White House used?
>
>(3) Does the White House keep information from these web sites on file,
>    and does the White House keep a file on the persons responsible for
>    these web sites?
>
>(4) Is the April 9 statement by David Lytel of the White House Office of
>    Science and Technology to Amy Bauer of Copley News Service that the
>    administration does not monitor anti-Clinton activity on the web still
>    operative?
>
>
>    Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Marvin Lee
>The Washington Weekly
>
>Copyright (c) 1995 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
>
>
>
Linda Thompson
American Justice Federation
Home of AEN News and "Waco, the Big Lie" "America Under Siege"
3850 S. Emerson Ave.
Indianapolis, IN  46203
Telephone:  (317) 780-5200
Fax:  (317) 780-5209
Internet:  lindat at iquest.net

"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear
to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."
Harry Truman