DHS Set To Destroy "Einstein" Surveillance Records

schwit1 sends word that The Department of Homeland Security plans on disposing of all the records from a 3-year-long surveillance program without letting the public have access to them. The Department of Homeland Security is poised to ditch all records from a controversial network monitoring system called "Einstein" that are at least three years old, but not for security reasons. DHS reasons the files — which include data about traffic to government websites, agency network intrusions and general vulnerabilities — have no research significance. But some security experts say, to the contrary, DHS would be deleting a treasure chest of historical threat data. And privacy experts, who wish the metadata wasn't collected at all, say destroying it could eliminate evidence that the government wide surveillance system does not perform as intended. The National Archives and Records Administration has tentatively approved the disposal plan, pending a public comment period.

A clear pattern

[Taco Cowboy]

First when it was found out that IRS was illegal harassing citizen groups in the USA, and an investigation was launch, IRS responded by telling the world that all the computers used by the people involved that case were mysteriously and co-incidently damaged --- so no trace of guilt could be found

Then it came the case of the records of H1B be destroyed, without letting the public to check it

Now this

I have been in America since the 1970's, and when I first landed at America, the Watergate thing was still a v

Re:

[h4x0t]

The system is broken.

It has been for a long time.

I've used to dream of leaving and not looking back and I have the means, but where would that leave this place?
Down one educated individual.
Down one tax payer.

I have no idea what to do.

I could fight it. I could spend my whole life fighting it. To what end?
I do not want power. I just want the power that exists to not be abused.

Could some scientist/engineer out there run on that platform? You'd have my vote.

Send out mailers to your constituents

Build or support alternatives where you are...

[Paul Fernhout]

Whatever makes sense with your skills, resources, and connections... These alternatives are there to provide the seeds for a next generation. They can be things like non-profits, for-profits, hobbies, community organizations, libraries, social networks, barter exchanges, citizens groups focused on one important local issue like a better library or better infrastructure of some sort, a movement for a basic income, LETS systems, or whatever. A healthy society has a good mix of subsistence, gift, exchange, and

orly?

[slashmydots]

They're seeking public comments on a system that collected bulk data from the public that turned out to be useless? I think I might just submit "fuck you" as a comment.

Re:

[Fire_Wraith]

EINSTEIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_%28US-CERT_program%29) isn't a Snowden-esque spying program, it's an IDS system. Basically this is the IDS logs for several federal agencies they're talking about purging.

Redaction is hard I guess

[s.petry]

Sure, some records may contain what could be considered sensitive. Redacting IP addresses is not overly complex, but in this case may be time consuming. Considering that the Government has tons of super computers why not let one of these systems parse and redact the text.

Just deleting makes things appear bad, even if they are not.

Blackmail: Public analysis of confidential data!

[DutchUncle]

"destroying it could eliminate evidence that the government wide surveillance system does not perform as intended", so we'll prove that it wasn't necessary by revealing everyone who looked at it and publicly cross-checking them against troublemaker lists? What could go wrong?

Re:

[BlueStrat]

Keep in mind that Einstein is a DHS program for monitoring the security of government networks from an internal point of view. It consolidates information from participating agencies' firewalls, intrusion detection systems, malware detection, anti-virus scanners, etc,. It has nothing to do with monitoring anyone or anything aside from government-owned systems, government-owned internal networks (i.e. the LAN in a government office building), and the actions of government employees using those internal government-owned stems and networks. In other words, it's exactly the same sort of thing every major company, university, or other organization does in their security operations centers.

Whether or not the data should be kept around for research purposes is a worthwhile question, although publishing it would require a lot of sanitization to avoid revealing data that would be useful to attackers (for instance, the name, IP address, and precise version number of every firewall within a given agency).

But in this case it's not about covering up any surveillance or information gathering on public behavior.

How about records of one or more government agencies intruding into other government agency's or branch's networks?

For instance, could there be evidence contained in those logs of TLAs intruding into the networks of Congress, the SCOTUS, etc?

Never mind TLAs spying on normal everyday citizens. The Executive Branch has been quite cavalier of late in spying on those in the other branches of government, particularly when said other branches may be deciding whether or not to exercise their duty and ability to li

Re:

[Fire_Wraith]

The EINSTEIN Program long predates the current administration, as it dates back to 2004. In fairness, though, we could ask whether this is in keeping with past treatment of such records - that is, has DHS always done this with these records, or is this new?

Re:

[davydagger]

all the stuff that also happened under a "conservative" president.

Lets not beat around the bush. This has little to do with "liberal" vs "conservative", this has more to do with "democrat" and "republican". Not ideaologies, but formal organizations with well defined leadership and central planning. They are both guilty in varying degrees.

Honestly, what is amazing is that if you watch the "third party" debates, across the board, all canidates involved are dead set against this sort of thing. This include

Re:

[aitikin]

all the stuff that also happened under a "conservative" president.

Lets not beat around the bush. This has little to do with "liberal" vs "conservative", this has more to do with "democrat" and "republican". Not ideaologies, but formal organizations with well defined leadership and central planning. They are both guilty in varying degrees.

Honestly, what is amazing is that if you watch the "third party" debates, across the board, all canidates involved are dead set against this sort of thing. This includes the Greens, Libertarians, and even pretty standard conservative "Constitution Party".

And people wonder why I feel we need to amend the Constitution to stop favoring the 2 party system...

Constitution and multiple parties

[mi]

And people wonder why I feel we need to amend the Constitution to stop favoring the 2 party system...

There is no such "favoring" anywhere in the Constitution. We have multiple parties and, in fact, one of them was — the Whigs — once strong enough to gain major chunks in Congress and the Presidency.

What confuses many people — including, it seems, yourself — is that in the US we do not vote for parties. We vote for individuals. The individuals may or may not choose to affiliate with a

Re:

[Fire_Wraith]

The U.S. Constitution wasn't written with parties in mind. Several of the founding fathers hoped to avoid the sort of political parties and factionalism that were features of the British Parliament; or at least that's often inferred from things like Federalist No. 10. That said, it is a consequence of "Winner-take-all"/"First Past the Post" voting systems, such as the US, but it's hardly a US-only phenomenon. The same pressures exist in Canada, for instance, and can be seen in the way the Canadian Conservat

Re:

[mi]

That said, it is a consequence of "Winner-take-all"/"First Past the Post" voting systems

This system is not codified anywhere in the Constitution either, as far as I know...

Re:

[Fire_Wraith]

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar or Lawyer, so I'm not really qualified to draw the line between where the line is drawn between what is explicitly required and what is just tradition and processes created on top of that framework. Certainly though there's some room for interpretation, as electoral methods vary state by state. Some states have runoffs if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote (such as is currently the case in the Louisiana Senate race). This is still a winner-take-all system though. On

Re:

[davydagger]

is that in the US we do not vote for parties. We vote for individuals

What is tripping you up, is the fact that in reality we DO vote for parties, almost exlcusively, with mabey handfuls of exceptions.

There is no such "favoring" anywhere in the Constitution

Of course not, but it created a system, due to how people and groups work, focus on a two party system, the challenger, and the incumbent, and is biased against a multi-party system(i.e. someone acts as a spoiler, if there are three parties running. A and B are somewhat close to eachother, and C is diffrent, Most people like the ideas of A and B, but C gets elected, despite the

Re:

[mi]

What is tripping you up, is the fact that in reality we DO vote for parties, almost exlcusively, with mabey handfuls of exceptions.

There are no parties in the Constitution. So, no, we do not. We do know the candidates' (claimed) affiliations and this knowledge does affect our voting. But there is no codified "system", that gives "parties" any legal meaning — not in the US.

which is frankly a better idea.

This is even further off-topic...

Re:

[davydagger]

There are no parties in the Constitution. So, no, we do not. We do know the candidates' (claimed) affiliations and this knowledge does affect our voting. But there is no codified "system", that gives "parties" any legal meaning — not in the US.

Just because there is no codified system, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. The system exists, because of conditions set up by our election system.

Its seen as cause and effect. Do you not understand cause and effect?

Re:

[mi]

Just because there is no codified system, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Just because there is no X, doesn't mean X does not exist. Marvelous.

The system exists, because of conditions set up by our election system.

The Y exists, because of Y.

Darling, depending on your age, there may still be hope for you. But I'm not going to cast any more pearls before you — I've done my duty to society.

Re:

[davydagger]

Darling, depending on your age, there may still be hope for you.

I used to think like you, then I studied history. your views are out of touch with history.

Re:

[aitikin]

There is no such "favoring" anywhere in the Constitution. We have multiple parties and, in fact, one of them was — the Whigs — once strong enough to gain major chunks in Congress and the Presidency.

Uh, have you read the 12th Amendment? I quote the first relevant section, "...if such number [of electoral votes] be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed..." by definition forcing it to mean 50.0000001% or greater (AKA a majority). So, if 3 candidates are in the running, one gets 10%, one gets 45% and the other gets 45%, no one wins. Following that scenario, "...the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President..." means that, whoever has the majority most me

Re:

[mi]

Uh, have you read the 12th Amendment?

The Amendment [wikipedia.org] applies to elections of the Executive — President and Vice President. We were talking — it seemed to me — about legislatures — where in the US two parties dominate, but in other countries there is a wonderful tapestry of multi-partyism.

So, if 3 candidates are in the running, one gets 10%, one gets 45% and the other gets 45%, no one wins.

I don't believe, this ever happened. Somebody would usually get at list slightly more votes than t

Re:

[Harlequin80]

No Westminster system is party based for elections you vote for individuals. Though some of those systems have a hybrid system for the Senate / House of review.

Looking at - https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org] I would guess first past the post (US style) is probably the most represented, followed by a hybrid then party based.

Re:

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

We have a two-party system because all the little factions band together to seize the presidency, an enormous prize with veto.

That's the difference. To fix means altering the president's power, which will never happen.

Re:

[mi]

Please, explain the success of the Whigs in the 19th century — according to your theory, it simply could not have happened.

Nay, according to your theory, even the 2nd party should not exist...

Re:

[mi]

all the stuff that also happened under a "conservative" president.

Some of it was, indeed, happening under a Conservative President. We were then told, it must be ended — "before liberty is destroyed" — and that electing an Illiberal President is the way. We got such a President, and all of the government abuses became worse.

For example, whereas Bush was using drones to kill suspects, who could not be captured, Obama uses them to kill all suspects [theguardian.com] (because he does not want to get stuck with "inc

Re:

[Fire_Wraith]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:

[davydagger]

Scream all we want about Bush-era NSA surveillance, but such surveillance has not hurt an innocent American yet

you mean "it just didn't make the news yet".

typical partisan tripe. Dodge all responsibility and blame the other guy.

But the crimes are still real! Now contrast this with Obama's use of the IRS audits to suppress opposition.

If you think that is bad, see what the DEA has been doing since reagan.

Re:

[mi]

you mean "it just didn't make the news yet".

I mean, no one — not even you — has any evidence of it.

typical partisan tripe. Dodge all responsibility and blame the other guy.

Empty words.

If you think that is bad, see what the DEA has been doing since reagan.

Citation needed.

Re:

[davydagger]

I mean, no one — not even you — has any evidence of it.

except we do. the docs snowden leaked contain entries going back to around ~2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 [wikipedia.org] PRISM is a clandestine anti-terrorism[1] mass electronic surveillance data mining program launched in 2007 by the National Security Agency (NSA) and government survialence has been consistantly leaked on slashdot since it started in 1997, going back to CARNIVORE, RAPTORE, and this: Narus [wikipedia.org]

Citation needed.

This is the war on drugs [npr.org]
Reagan declares war [politico.com]
This is parellel constructi [reuters.com]

Re:

[mi]

except we do.

My claim was not, that the government was not engaged in surveillance, but that no innocent American has been harmed by it. Your examples enumerate the cases of such surveillance, but do not list anybody being harmed by it.

This is the war on drugs .. Reagan declares war

Drugs are illegal — criminals are prosecuted. That's not evidence of innocent Americans being harmed.

This is parellel construction

Yes, I know about the parallel construction and did mention it my post. It has not, however,

Re:

[davydagger]

Drugs are illegal — criminals are prosecuted. That's not evidence of innocent Americans being harmed.

Except its been used against "innocent" parties. Its been linked in the article.

Yes, I know about the parallel construction and did mention it my post. It has not, however, been used against an innocent party. Some day it may be abused that way, but it has not happened yet — whereas Obama's use of IRS and DoJ power to silence critics has happened and continues to happen

you mean habitual tax evaders? from the article you linked:

Wynn Resorts is under investigation for potential money-laundering law violations, according to a new report from Dow Jones.

Money laundering is a crime. People are being investigated for it.

It seems to be, just as many innocent people were harmed by the DEA as the IRS, if you want to apply your logic evenly to both sides.

Re:

[mi]

Einstein was created by Dubya, little

There is nothing wrong with the Einstein system itself. Deleting its records, however — to destroy evidence of government overstepping legal bounds — try blaming that on W...

Yeah right

[DaMattster]

They don't want evidence of wrongdoing and ethics violations are their part surfacing.

Better than IRS lost emails

[Bar666Bar]

Lucky them, at least their computers did not crash

http://online.wsj.com/articles... [wsj.com]

Move along.

[Ahnahmoley]

These aren't the data troves you were looking fof.

Re: Move along.

[Ahnahmoley]

Where was autocorrect when I actually needed it! Cooking and posting at the same time FTL.

What TFS Misses from TFA

[Fire_Wraith]

Short version: this is a bunch of IDS logs and similar data that DHS (mainly US-CERT) has kept from various federal agencies. This isn't secretly collected information, it's records of things being sent to the government (email, web traffic, whatever). According to TFA, Civil Libertarians are apparently for the deletion, because releasing it means everyone gets to see what you sent the government. This assumes (and that's a big if) that there's nothing in there that DHS wants to hide. SANS doesn't think i

They are public records,

[rickb928]

Confidential perhaps, but public data. We paid for them.

There is value in them, when is it's just historical data.

Re:

[Fire_Wraith]

What really interests me is whether this is a change in their data retention posture, or if it's the same that they've been doing all along. The Einstein program didn't start in 2011, it dates back to something like 2004. If this has been the protocol all along, then I don't think there's any serious reason for concern. Keeping this much data stored in any easily accessible/usable form isn't cheap.

Paranoia?

[duck_rifted]

Data about catastrophic threats must be retained. Minor threats are quite likely either inconsequential or already squashed. Don't computer scientists sometimes hack each other or target each other with malware (with consent) as a kind of contest to sharpen their security skills? If Einstein works in the best possible way, even little blips like that are recorded, and if they're significant then surely the scientists are either publishing papers or implementing solutions already. I'd expect the remainde

Where did everyone go?

[31415926535897]

I know Slashdot hasn't been as popular these days and it's cool to hate on beta, but it seems like a ghost town now. Where did everyone go?