Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft
June 28, 2004 End-to-End Must Die So that National Security May Live
Prof. Susan Crawford has been breaking and following some monumentally important stories recently. Her latest regards one of my favorite federal agencies, the FCC, and the huge power grab it is considering exercising with regard to the internet. This is no joke, the FCC is considering regulating everything that uses the IP protocol (Nethead/Bellhead -- Noticing DHS). If you think this is just about the big telecoms, you're wrong: "[National Security/Emergency Preparedness] NS/EP considerations provide a compelling rationale for applying a certain amount of regulation to IP-enabled services. The purpose of such regulation would be to ensure the prioritized availability of certain communication services to Federal, state, and local officials and first responders in times of emergency or national crisis."Crawford is quoting from the Department of Homeland Security filing in the IP- related services proceeding (In the Matter of FCC Review of Regulatory Requirements for IP-Enabled Services: Comments of the Department of Homeland Security [PDF] The fun part of this document is that it won't let you copy/paste).
How much regulation is necessary? "In the event of crisis, NS/EP national leadership must receive end- to-end priority treatment over other users. . . . NS/EP traffic must be identified with its own class of service -- above and beyond "best effort."This, of course, would mean the end of end-to-end as IP providers would have to check packets to see if they were specially marked by the government (which would require all sorts of checks so that we could be sure the packets hadn't been spoofed and what not). Basically, we would have to build into the internet a smart network. Once you've done that, all sorts of other regulations become possible.
As Crawford notes, all of this would be done in the name of national security. You're not against national security, are you?
Posted by Ernest at 6:44 AM