Is the American government requiring American companies to host terrorist
web sites?
By Jeremy Reynalds
web posted May 13, 2002
With the situation in the Middle East close to boiling, two American
Internet Service Providers are claiming that the government is requiring
them to continue hosting web sites promoting terrorist groups and
activities.
Let me explain. Last week I reported a story concerning the possible hosting
by a Houston-based Internet Service Provider of a Hamas terrorist web site
that's asking for donations to buy guns and ammunition. After calling the
company for comment, I also e-mailed CEO Robert Marsh and asked him why his
company was hosting such a site.
Marsh responded by e-mail, "We host a large number of web sites, directly
and indirectly. We had no knowledge that we were hosting these sites. We
don't want to host these types of sites and as we are made aware of them, we
remove these offensive sites immediately. We here at Ev1 and Rackshack were
deeply affected by the events on September 11th, and would never do anything
to aid those people. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention."
Being aware that the Hamas has been designated an illegal terrorist group by
the United States government, I also alerted the Houston FBI. An agent took
down all the information I gave him and told me to expect a call the next
day. I never received any call back from the FBI and when the offending web
sites weren't removed I initially figured that maybe the folks at Everyone's
Internet weren't as "deeply affected " as they had made out.
However, a few days later I was e-mailed a story from the Houston Chronicle,
which let me know why the web sites were still up and why the FBI hadn't
called me back. However, these "answers" triggered even more questions.
Marsh told the Chronicle he was unaware of the sites until recently (I
suspect when I called his office and e-mailed him informing him of their
existence), and that while Everyman's does not do business directly with the
site operators in question, he was willing to block them anyway.
Now this is where the story gets really interesting and we need to start
making calls and demanding answers. According to the Chronicle, after
blocking the sites the company was contacted by the U.S. Customs Service
which asked that the sites be put back on line again. Since when has the
U.S. Customs Service had any form of legal authority over the web?
This time, Marsh did not return e-mails from me asking for comment. He had
nothing to say to the Houston Chronicle either, on why the Customs Service
wanted the sites running again. According to the Chronicle, "Marsh referred
questions to a telephone number left by a customs agent. The number rang at
the Customs Communications Center in Orlando, Fla., where an officer said he
had no information on the case. FBI and customs spokesmen in Houston said
they too had no information."
There's also apparent government involvement for another terrorist web site
out there too, azzam.com. This site is filled with a lot of pro-Islamic,
anti-American propaganda. Among other information, you can see quotes from
Taliban officials and spokesmen such as "If a country or group violates our
country, we will not forget our revenge." Another quote read, "Any enemy of
the Muslims will be punished by God. The United States and Israel are
enemies of Islam, and then there was "If anyone assists America and allows
them to use their airspace or land routes against us then we will be forced
to retaliate against them."
And rhetoric such as this is apparently being supported by an arm of the
federal government, because the ISP hosts are not happy about their
involvement. The hosting trail for this site eventually leads to burst.net
When I e-mailed burst.net asking why the company hosted such a site, here is
the response I got from a Sean Rosler, who identified himself as being with
System Administration.
"BurstNET DOES NOT voluntarily host the azzam.com web site. It has either
been removed from our equipment (It hasn't) or has been left untouched by
gov't official request. (My emphasis). It was formerly hosted here, was
under government investigation, and was/will be removed as soon as the govt
allowed us to do such. It would have been removed the instant we found out
about it, had we not been instructed by the 'powers that be' to leave it
untouched ... We are a Jewish owned corporation, do you really think we want
to host such crap?"
Folks, concerned Americans deserve explanations on this one. Why is the
government apparently requiring these companies to continue hosting these
sites? Let's contact the media, our elected officials and demand that we get
some answers.
Jeremy Reynalds is a freelance writer and the founder and director of Joy
Junction, New Mexico's largest emergency homeless shelter. He has a master's
degree in communication from the University of New Mexico and is pursuing
his PhD in intercultural education at Biola University in Los Angeles. He is
married with five children and lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico. His work
can be viewed here and weekly at www.americasvoices.org. He may be contacted
by e-mail at reynalds@joyjunction.org.
Other related stories:
Is American ISP hosting terrorist web site? by Jeremy Reynalds (May 6, 2002)
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0502/0502qassam.htm
Background information on Robert Marsh (Everyone's Internet / Rackshack) and
his former government top counter-terrorism position :
When was cyber security recognized as a national issue?
Ronald Reagan was the first U.S. president to address the problem, signing
the Computer Security Act of 1987 to protect federal agencies' computer
data.
Given the growing dependence in the 1990s of U.S. infrastructures on the
cyber world, President Clinton in 1996 set up the President's Commission on
Critical Infrastructure Protection, led by former Air Force General Robert
Marsh and known as the Marsh Commission, to safeguard vital systems such as
gas, oil, transportation, water, telecommunications, etc. Two years later,
Clinton ordered the government to work with the private sector to secure
vital information networks, 90 percent of which are privately owned and
operated. Clinton also appointed Richard Clarke as national coordinator for
security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism.
In 2000, the Clinton administration released its cyber security strategy,
which was criticized by civil liberties and privacy groups for advocating a
government intrusion detection network.
The plan was later dropped.
In October 2001, George W. Bush set up the President's Critical
Infrastructure Advisory Board, responsible for developing a national cyber
security strategy. Richard Clarke became White House adviser on cyber
security.
In February 2003, the Bush administration released its National Strategy to
Secure Cyberspace (http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cyberwar/etc/faqs.html
In July 2003, Microsoft was hired as main technology partner in the NSSC
program. A day later, the weakness exploited in the Blaster worm was
published.
In September 2003, Symantec executive Amit Yoran was appointed to replace
Richard Clarke and implement the NSSC agenda.
.
|
|
| User: "frtgzhuj" |
|
| Title: Re: Former PCIPB Director, Hosting Terrorist Websites ? |
29 Oct 2003 10:41:55 AM |
|
|
When I e-mailed burst.net asking why the company hosted such a site, here is
the response I got from a Sean Rosler, who identified himself as being with
System Administration.
"BurstNET DOES NOT voluntarily host the azzam.com web site. It has either
been removed from our equipment (It hasn't) or has been left untouched by
gov't official request. (My emphasis). It was formerly hosted here, was
under government investigation, and was/will be removed as soon as the govt
allowed us to do such. It would have been removed the instant we found out
about it, had we not been instructed by the 'powers that be' to leave it
untouched ... We are a Jewish owned corporation, do you really think we want
to host such crap?"
Folks, concerned Americans deserve explanations on this one. Why is the
government apparently requiring these companies to continue hosting these
sites?
BurstNet likes to make money.
(1) It hosts pornographic web sites.
(2) When BurstNet receives customer requests to close an account,
BurstNet sometimes keeps the account open anyway.
(3) When the government requests BurstNet to keep an allegedly
terrorist account open, BurstNet does so.
Keeping an account open makes money for BurstNet. Why should BurstNet
disregard a request when the request makes money for BurstNet?
You seem concerned that the government would request that an allegedly
terrorist internet account (including web hosting) be allowed to stay open
by Burst.Net.
First of all, maybe the government knows what it is doing. For
example, maybe the government wants to (illegally?) read email from or to
the account, to better investigate.
Second, I guess it is possible that keeping the account open might
be a mistake, as you seem to think. Our government makes lots of mistakes
fighting terrorism, just as it mnakes lots of mistakes doing other
things. Don't confuse the importance of the task with the competence of
those in charge of doing it. Imagine that you don't know anyone who died
unnecessarily because of government incompetence in the struggle against
terrorism. Try not to get too concerned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
