Open Source Featured Article

A landmark federal law that Congress passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks may be contributing to what experts call a dramatic– and for U.S. national security agencies, regrettable – shift in the way Internet traffic travels throughout the world.

 

The so-called “Patriot (News - Alert) Act” gave federal officials wide new investigative powers in the name of protecting the nation. Touted as paving the way for agencies such as the FBI to root out terrorists before they can act, the law has been sharply criticized by civil liberties groups who long have called for greater transparency in the way those new powers are used.

 

Earlier this wee, John Markoff of The New York Times reported that since the Patriot Act’s passage, ISP’s located outside of the United States, fearing that their clients’ information could be intercepted by groups such as the National Security Agency (News - Alert), are reluctant to let information pass through the nation.

 

“There is an ongoing concern that U.S. intelligence agencies will gather this information without legal process,” Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, reportedly told Markoff. “There is particular sensitivity about access to financial information as well as communications and Internet traffic that goes through U.S. switches.”

 

The flow of Internet traffic around the United States marks a sharp change from past years, when the nation saw much of the world’s traffic pass through ISP’s based here. Federal officials long have said that the United States had an advantage on the international intelligence community because of that fact – one that military agencies could exploit to the nation’s advantage.

 

Markoff reports that Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006, called the phenomenon the United States’ “home-field advantage.”

 

“Because of the nature of global telecommunications, we are playing with a tremendous home-field advantage, and we need to exploit that edge,” Hayden said. “We also need to protect that edge, and we need to protect those who provide it to us.”

 

Markoff says that economics also plays a role: As the Internet spreads, nations stand to make more money by having ISPs based at home.

 

Yet in a phenomenon known as “tromboning,” many Internet communications often fail to take the geographical equivalent of a straight line between two points, according to The Times.

 

Internet privacy long has been a hot-button issue among ISP representatives, civil liberties advocates and legislators.

 

One recent privacy issue involves so-called “deep packet inspection” from companies such as Sandvine (News - Alert), whose technologies allow ISPs and governments to see information being sent and received online.

 

As TMC President and Group Editor-in-Chief Rich Tehrani writes, if Web traffic keeps growing exponentially, ISPs will either have to invest in exponentially more powerful equipment or use DPI technology coupled with bandwidth throttling/traffic shaping to ensure their networks provide adequate bandwidth levels at all times.

 

“Some groups are not happy about DPI technology and are protesting its use,” Tehrani writes.

 

He continues: “As always, new technologies have the potential to ruffle feathers at first. The problem with DPI however is that users aren't aware it is even being used. I wonder if it will be the governments who come out in favor of some sort of legislation regarding how DPI data is used. I will certainly keep you posted. This should be an interesting battle to watch.”

 

Meanwhile, Markoff writes, efforts to circumvent the United States vis-a-vis Internet traffic are moving beyond Europe, Canada and developing nations.

 

According to one interview for Markoff’s piece in the times – K C Claffy, a research scientist at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis in San Diego – the Japanese “are on a rampage to build out across India and China so they have alternative routes and so they don’t have to route through the U.S.”