Whitehouse "dissident" web site monitoring?

[hallam at w3.org]

Hang on a sec, what is meant to be the conspiracy?

I don't see any relationship to cryptography here. The material in question was 
published very publicaly. If you make a public statement about a person then 
they have a right to hear it. I see that the message on log file confidentiality 
is not getting through though.


I happen to know that the US government is very interested in hearing the views 
of its citizens, and also the views of citizens of other countries. They are 
interested in particular about views relating to the actions of the US 
government, what the government is doing and what it could do. "anti-president 
views" are of great importance if it is known why those views are held.

In my country we call that listening. I have just spent a couple of days talking 
with a group of people looking at how we can do that better. There is a 
considerable barrier to being involved in the political process, perhaps the Web 
can reduce that barrier. The problem being how to handle the massive amounts of 
input.


>    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.  

DO NOT DO THIS.

The secret service is required by law to investigate every single threat. This 
costs a very considerable amount of money which comes from your taxes. There is 
no discresion in the matter. Hence the only method of reducing the number of 
alarms is to arrest people and make an example of them. Unless you want to be 
the example do not do this.


>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

I don't know which those machines are, however there are a large number of Web 
browsers in the Whitehouse and there are a large number of staffers. There is 
also a Web browser outside the oval office for visitors to use while they are 
waiting. If you make it your buisness to print nasty material about people then 
don't be suprized if they read it. The material has probably been picked up by a 
search engine in any case.


There is no conspiracy here unless you are very determined to find one. Given 
the nature of the article it does not appear that a balanced view of the 
administration was being sought in any case. I happen to know that Newt 
Gingrich's staffers and Weld's staffers also surf the Web, are they "monitoring 
anti-Newt dissidents?", I suspect not. I don't get the impression that our 
anonymous source has sent a complaint in that direction. I spend a considerable 
amount of time getting people in power to listen to the net community. I get 
very pissed off when a bunch of conspiracy nuts try to make out that they have 
been doing anything wrong when they do.


As a matter of ethics I consider information in log files private. This was 
certainly considered to be the case in the Marty Rimm affair. The posting was 
clearly designed to intimidate the Whitehouse staffers into not visiting those 
sites, it was possible that they might have lost their net.access entirely as a 
result of the complaint. I consider the letter sent to Terzano to be unethical 
since the staffers had a right to expect their privacy to be preserved.


If people want to talk about cryptography and the President we can discuss 
whether he should put a digital signature on his press releases.


I think the use of the word dissident in the message is an insult, both to the 
dissidents in the Eastern Europe and other places who have suffered genuine 
persecution and to the democratic institutions and people of the United States.


		Phill Hallam-Baker

Not speaking for anyone else.