U.S. Gov't Planning To "Help Us" Secure Computers 455
BahdKo writes: "CNN reported today in this article that the U.S. government is working out a plan to help protect Cyberspace from attacks by "hackers and terrorists." This plan will include the distribution of government-provided software to help clean up insecure Windows installations. It's hard to picture myself executing government provided software on my workstation (we were supposed to be *increasing* the security of the PC's, right?)"
go go gadget gov't (Score:4, Funny)
Re: go go gadget gov't (Score:5, Funny)
> It's almost like the US gov't has a list of things techies hate, and they're going down the list and doing each thing, just to piss us all off.
If your hypothesis is correct, we can expect to see the gov't eating vegetables pretty soon.
Let's do the time warp again? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's all be good Americans, well, those of us who are Americans (--points finger--), and spy on our neighbours, secure our piece of cyberspace, and whatever else our fearless leader says we should do, because then those damn Commi^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists won't be able to eat us all up as we sleep in our (all-American) beds at night.
Theme music: "Exhuming McCarthy," REM, Document
Re:go go gadget gov't (Score:2, Funny)
- It's almost like the US gov't has a list of things techies hate, and they're going down the list and doing each thing, just to piss us all off.
Looks like we're stuck with Microsoft then.who do you trust more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who do you trust more? (Score:2)
jeez (Score:2, Insightful)
Secure Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Remeber that the government has released security extensions to linux already. so don't be to quick to beat them down. If the software they provide is open and auditable then why not?
Re:Secure Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if it isn't open, why not? Whether it's designed to be auditable or not, it's gonna be audited. Bigtime.
NSA has two mandates - 0wn non-Americans' b0x3n, and help us secure our b0x3n against non-Americans. This seems to be part of the latter mandate.
For those speculating that this isn't an NSA thing to secure your boxes, but is instead a sneaky way to get you to install FBI trojanware - finding proof of such a claim would probably be the greatest prize in hackerdom.
With that much fame at stake, you don't think every hacker and cracker on the planet isn't gonna be disassembling every last byte of this code, looking for precisely this sort of evidence? Once the binary's released, there'll be no way to put the cat back in the bag once an army of determined reverse-engineers goes over it. With that many eyes, even trojans/bugs in closed-source apps are shallow.
Our government may be dumb, but they're not that dumb. So odds are very good that this is merely what it claims to be - a quick-and-dirty tool to help secure a system.
Much as it can be fun to imagine otherwise, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about O.S., but it better be free! (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
I would not be surprised if it starts out as a simple virus scanner, totally benign.. But baloons into a full blown security enforcement tool that would close off ports and such.
Security violation detected! Disabling FTP port
Security violation detected! Disabling sendmail (Please use US Gov't approved mail server software such as MS Exchange)
Security violation detected! Your mail is not housed on a Gov't monitored host. Forwarding all mail folders to FBI.GOV
Security violation detected: Removing non-commercial software (please see US Gov't website for approved applications)
(etc...)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
my opinion: given decompilers, and the expertice in the top tier cracking community, hiding sourcef does not prevent people knowing exactly what software is doing -- especially in such a high profile example.
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I happen to disagree, but even if I didn't I'd suggest that this is one of the times when having the source code is most important.
The US federal government is not a trustworthy entity. Various departments within that organisation are known to disregard laws concerning privacy and security and many of these also have institutional goals, official or otherwise, that involve spying on American citizens and others. Therefore a reasonable person would consider binary-only software from the federal government to be untrusted in the same way as an unsolicited mail attachment or unsigned binary files found on arbitrary web or ftp sites. The reasonable and prudent assumption is that such untrusted binaries are malware until proven otherwise.
If the government wants to convince systems administrators that its security-enhancing software is in fact *not* malware, the best way would be to provide the source code in full. If doing so exposes new vulnerabilities, the government should, before releasing the tools in any form, follow normal vulnerability reporting procedures. If Microsoft or other vendors are unresponsive, the proper procedure includes full disclosure of the vulnerabilities and their fixes. The source code to these tools constitute fixes, and should be released either in coordination with vendors or in the event that vendors are unresponsive. In short, the government should follow the same procedures regarding vulnerability disclosure and dissemination that most other people do.
Internally, of course, I expect and hope that systems would be patched as soon as possible. Naturally I would patch my own company's systems even before a vendor releases a patch if I initially discovered the problem and its solution. But internal dissemination is a separate matter.
because security trough obscurity is no security (Score:2)
For example banks do not use secret algortighms for their communications. They use well known algorithms so the mathematics community can examine them and point out any problems.
Another example - computers games. They are usually closed source and yet almost every famous multiplayer game has been hacked.
So no closed source doesnt give you much security.
Open source would provide much more security because it would allow every one to check the code and correct mistakes.
What about the Lock Box? (Score:3, Funny)
lol (Score:2)
Not Likely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the general populus isn't paranoid about their gov't, but even so most people will balk at the gov't saying, "Here's some nice friendly software courtesy of Uncle Sam that we'd like EVERYONE to run on their computer. It, um, looks for flaws 'n stuff."
For myself, and I assume most of the geeks here, I'd want to read every single line of any code given to me to run by the gov't, compile it myself, and run it. Love your country, yes. Trust your country, never.
close (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Likely... (Score:2)
Given the relative success that NSA SE Linux has had to date, yes making the tool open source would only benefit everyone.
Re:Not Likely... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually I'd be content to just let you read it and wait for anything suspicious to pop up on
Re:Not Likely... (Score:2, Insightful)
Love your country, keep your powder dry.
Assume the worst (Score:2, Funny)
The Feds are already wherever they want to be and I think that they would rather be the only ones there. I still want to keep out the rest of the world and the Feds want to help. How could this be any worse than what we have.
The really paranoid (or sensible) people will use strong encryption which is more to the point.
All your database are belong to U.S.
eh... (Score:3, Informative)
no thanks I'll just drink bleach (Score:2, Flamebait)
Holy fucking shit. I didn't know gas companies, credit card companies, probably some banks and insurance companies too care so much of a shit about my cybersecurity they're willing to coopt with the Pentagon to do it.
And what have these nimbots come up with. oooooh yeaaahhhhhh! some hardening instructions for Windows code.
Can I get a Wit-nesss!
Honestly this is muy lame-o. What kind of MS or other vendor driven crap are they going to 'certify'???? These wankers lead the known universe in their utter fucking indifference to what you or I want or need, so what do you think they're going to accomplish, aside of course for some more lobbying opportunities.
Boo-Yah,
All gov't-developed software is public domain... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:All gov't-developed software is public domain.. (Score:5, Insightful)
We've got gov't programs running major systems (though NT on Aircraft Carriers, IIRC). A lot of gov't created systems are running gov't machines. Much of the software is so specialized that it's probably not much use to any of us, but there's a few pieces that if crackers got a hold of would be disastrous.
Just to illustrate this, one of the guys I worked with (he left, maybe a week after I started) had worked with the DoD before working here. Me, being the inquisitive student, asked about it. He told me that most of their programmers and engineers don't know what they're working on. The engineers get told, "build this part," not "build this part for this machine."
Programmers are treated more or less the same way. They're not told to write a program. They're told to write a class, or maybe just a function. They aren't told what they're working on, just to code. The higher ranking/clearance guys then put it together.
So, eventually, yeah, maybe we'll get to see the code. But there is a lot of classified stuff in the government. You don't get to hear about everything.
And, correct me if I wrong, we don't even get to see the code for the America's Army game, do we? Of course it wasn't developed by them, just for them. Thoughts?
Re:All gov't-developed software is public domain.. (Score:2)
All government developed software is *NOT* public domain.
The AC is right on this one - all government-developed software is most assuredly not PD.
Re:All gov't-developed software is public domain.. (Score:2)
According to many online sources (e.g. the U.S. Copyright Office [copyright.gov] or Lawnotes [lawnotes.com]), works created by the U.S. Government are not copyrightable. However, the government can aquire copyrights for works created by others.
Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot views are so far to the left that they've wrapped around to those of the ultra right Montana Freemen.
Re:Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Trusting the government is the same way. Let's look at their security record over the past few years:
1. The Clipper Chip
2. Carnivore
3. Expanded rights for home surveillance
There are more, and I'm sure if we all sit down we can think of a list that's truly huge. But, looking at past performance, what am I to extrapolate about this move? The government should have no real interest in my personal PC. There hasn't been a large public outcry for the government to get involved in securing end-user's desktops. So, it seems pretty clear to me that this is a way for the government to get a foothold in every windows PC inside the US. No one has asked for this, but it's an easy way for them to get in and make us think it's for our own good.
Besides, it's not always about what their intentions are right now. Social Security numbers were never invented to be completely unique identifiers used for everything from customer numbers at Jiffy Lube to student ID's at colleges, but that's how it turned out. Why? Because power corrupts. If the government has software on every PC in the US, and there is another terrorist attack, how long before people cry out to add some backdoors that allow good old uncle sam to read your email?
It's all in the interest of national security, and anyone who opposes it must be a terrorist. Any logical american who has nothing to hide wouldn't mind, right? We're trying to look out for everyone else? Granted, I doubt that Uncle Same will say "You know, once the threat is over, we'll get rid of this monitoring, because we don't need it anymore."
Instead of being so quick to dismiss the protectors of liberty as being right-wing nutcases, maybe you should read some history and try to think of their motives. Not everyone in the government is a saint with your best interests in mind.
Re:Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:3, Insightful)
[sarcasm] Yeah! I mean, just because the US govt has a history of spying on people and fucking things up is no reason to get all suspicious. [/sarcasm]
It's not "cool" to be suspicious of one's government. It's every citizen's responsibility to question the govt's motives and actions. Trusting the US government is the most unAmerican thing a US citizen can do. The system was intentionally not set up to work on trust.
Re: Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why is it cool to think that the United States Government is out to spy on everyone and in general fuck things up?
It isn't "cool", it's a simple recognition of the facts. Did you miss the news last month when it came out that the FBI had a 2^16 page file on one of CA's uni presidents in the 70's, simply because they didn't think he was "tough enough" on liberal professors? Or the earlier revelation that they had a whopping big file on that Dangerous Enemy of the Republic, Albert Einstein?
These people have been at it so long that their primary motive for spying now is that they've forgotten how else to act.
> Slashdot views are so far to the left that they've wrapped around to those of the ultra right Montana Freemen.
What has Left-Right got to do with it? Not wanting to be spied on is "normal".
Re: Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:2)
*gasp!* You mean that the FBI investigates people? Or that they actually *know* what *famous people* did?
Gee, what a shock! How dare they do their job, when they're supposed to automatically know who the "bad guys" are and go after them and them only!
(Yes, I know the FBI used its investigations as a form of intimidation; but that doesn't mean they shouldn't as a group still do it, just that the folks in charge need to be smacked & fired.)
What has Left-Right got to do with it? Not wanting to be spied on is "normal".
No, it isn't. No one "normal" stands next to the ATM so the camera doesn't capture your picture, or changes telephone lines "because this might be tapped", or routinely spends hours searching their PC for "spyware."
"Normal" people simply don't care, as they know it happens. They only care when it wrongly happens to them (i.e., their nude spyware photos are slapped on the web), and that's the only tiem they should.
Re: Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:2)
I hope you never go into the field of project management. I can see it now:
"Well, gee, the best way to go about the problem is to agree that it will happen. Then, when it does, we'll figure out what we should have done before to ensure it doesn't happen!"
Whats the matter? Ripped out the page in your dictionary that carries the defintion of "proactivism"?
Re: Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:2)
Re:Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:2)
Because the current administration is doing everything it can to prove it.
Re:Why is "help us" in quotes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not agree with the nuts who say that Bush/Ashcroft wanted 9/11 to happen but I do think that they where *very* excited about the chances it opened for them to tighten control of society. This is the man who said during the campaign that "we need limits on speech".
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=vi
Right...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Green Lantern... (Score:2)
Re:Green Lantern... (Score:2)
Re:Green Lantern... (Score:2)
Cool, my computer is surrounded by a glowing green light! That'll keep those cyberterrorists out!
Anyway, back on topic, this software is part of a program to protect critical non-government services. They're definitely not going to introduce any new vulnerabilities with it. The NSA's mission includes both development of spy technology for the gov't to use and development of counter-intelligence and security technology to protect the US. Spying on most Windows users is so easy that the gov't actually wants to make it harder, so their special technology is actually necessary.
1984 (Score:2, Funny)
Install Bush/Ashcroft-provided software? (Score:2)
I can see this happening. (Score:2)
Tcd004
Going Nowhere (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, if anyone is going to try to design such a package of software, I imagine that the NSA knows their stuff pretty darned well. They have been advertising security-enhanced Linux [nsa.gov] on their website for a while now. I've never tried it, so I can't testify to its usefulness.
Thank god (Score:2)
The tools can be found here (Score:5, Informative)
And to clarify alot of paranoia,
These tools were built in conjunction with the Federal government, major manufacturers, service providers and academia. The are basically scanners that look for the most common vulnerabilities on systems. And no, you're not installing an NSA/CIA/FBI/TLA backdoor onto your system.
Re:The tools can be found here (Score:3, Interesting)
Limitations on Use
Receipt of the CIS download package components does not permit you to:
a. Sell the CIS download package components;
b. Lease or lend the CIS download package components;
c. Distribute the CIS download package components by any means, including, but not limited to, through the Internet or other electronic distribution, direct mail, retail, or mail order (Certain internal distribution rights are specifically granted to CIS Consulting and User Members as noted in (2.e.) below);
d. In any other manner and through any medium commercially exploit or use the CIS download package components for any commercial purpose;
e. Post the Benchmarks, software tools, or associated documentation on any internal or external web site. (Consulting and User Members of CIS may distribute the CIS download package components within their own organization);
f. Represent or claim a particular level of compliance with the CIS Benchmarks unless the system is operated by a Consulting or User Member of CIS and has been scored against the Benchmark criteria by a monitoring tool obtained directly from CIS or a commercial monitoring tool certified by CIS.
I got better tools (Score:3, Interesting)
OpenBSD [slashdot.org]
I can't believe they think that yet another uber patch is going to fix Windoze. We all know the answers, and we all know that the ablsolute worst freaking securtity possible will come from a monoculture of M$ junk. This is NOT an honest move and it indicates that someone is serious about nationalizing computing through M$ .NET, Paladium/dongle hell.
Yes, now is the time for hysteria.
Grants (Score:5, Insightful)
Chasing their tail (Score:5, Insightful)
NSA Security Recommendations (Score:4, Informative)
Shaun
government isn't that bad (Score:5, Informative)
I mean if the government was that incompetent, we'd already know who really killed JFK, right?
At any rate, I happen to work for the government, and I've also held a few commercial jobs, and speaking on a reletivity scale, the government network has a much better security model than any place I've ever worked.
They also have a fanatical security "reaction" team that enforces security policy, scours vulnerability lists, and watches logs daily for signs of intrusions. When that apache hole came out a few weeks ago.. they gave every website at the facility about three days to fix it, otherwise they would start black hole-ing ports of machines running unpatched servers.
Now whether we're an exception or a rule I'm not qualified to state, but the government isn't quite as stupid as you're suggesting.
Outraged Conservative here. (Score:3, Informative)
We are talking about the most massively unAmerican activity since voluntary compliance income taxes. The government wants me to install software on my computer, specific to a certian insecure comercial operating system I don't trust to begin with. No fucking way. At any rate, I happen to work for the government, and I've also held a few commercial jobs, and speaking on a reletivity scale, the government network has a much better security model than any place I've ever worked
They got M$? They are incompetent, fanatical or not because they can not possibly autit all of M$'s massive core of crap, nor can they trust the tools M$ provides them. M$ has no security at all.
This new uberpatch will NEVER accomplish it's stated goal. IT WILL BE A CARNIVORE that uses your machine's cycles to do it's dirty work. There's an obvious cure for this, the use of free audited operating systems. If they would come out and advise that I'd be much much happier, and NO I don't need your stinking secret patch.
Remember the fourth amendment? You know, security in your personal papers and effects? This is NOT the kind of security the the bill of rights [archives.gov] had in mind.
Mr. Ashcoft, I call on you to remember your oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States of America. Let me remind you exacly what you swore to uphold:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Where is it? (Score:2)
Before people start screaming, "Big Brother!"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, back to the point: Hopefully this discussion won;t turn into a bunch of people yelling (and getting modded up for yelling) "Big Brother-Ware! I'll Never install this."
Trust the Gov't a little. This might be what it takes to get Average Joe Blow User to stop sharing his C drive on the phone company's DSL network.
flogger
Why do I have to pay twice? (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS is really serious about security (ahem), why don't they do this themselves? It would certainly help their reputation, and would fall in line with the *new* corp. responsibillity that good 'ol GW is talking about.
And then I woke up!
odd (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, if they bundle it with Kazza, it might be effective. Heavens only knows, a good percentage of the computers in the world install all the spyware crap, it couldn't really hurt any more. All security aside, I have my own problems with running government software on my personal computers, but thats beside the point.
-Restil
Yeah! CyberHomeland Security in the fucking house! (Score:2, Flamebait)
I mean, it's really good that the same government that busts into a house, shoots an elderly black man, and then realizes the grand drug bust was supposed to go down across the street is going to help me secure my homeland. Yeah, I'm enduring my fucking freedom [mnftiu.cc] more and more every day!
Dominion
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
UM... (Score:3, Insightful)
Have there not been many discussions about increased liability for fscked up, insecure software?
I feel the same sorta way about SELinux (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure it's legit through and through, but my Orwellian tendancies flare up when I think about patching the kernel of my machine with something developed by one of the most secretive organizations on the planet, whose primary job is snooping on everybody and everything...
It's really not the place for the goverment to encouraging people to start installing goverment sanctioned patches. If your a goverment agency, that's a different matter. What the goverment should do is lean very hard on those who are providing unsecure software and enviroments.
Here's the problem I have...
The Senate and House of represenatives are way too friendly with big business (read: DMCA/SSCEA), this includes the current administration as well... What this means is that I don't trust them to not put all kinds of provisions to entitle them to stomp all over my civil and constitutional rights based on the premise that they're doing the common good... 'cause their not, they're merely ensuring that the current regime keeps it monopolyies.
Let's get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Propping up that such poor 'down-on-its-luck company'? I think that the government should FINE Microsoft for each standard hole that each customer out there has; not fix the problems for it using public money.
the government should FINE Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Government Standards (Score:2)
Sorry. I prefer to set my standards MUCH higher.
Paranoia (Score:2)
Not fully if it's just a Binary, but in the Windows world often a Binary is the only option, and I'd put more trust in a Binary from the Federal Government than in some "Secure Win" Binary I downloaded off a free beer software site or even bought from a company that I hadn't checked out throughly.
This is a joke right? (Score:2)
The government? Trying to help... the People? What's the catch?
*End Sarcasm*
So often people seem to treat their relationship with their government as a monarchy: word comes down from on high, we pay taxes to be protected from other kingdoms, and we pay them or they will do mean things to us.
Maybe it doesn't speak well for the government but its odd how that when the government tries to help people seem to think they are lying.
Have things gotten that bad?
Blurred perception (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough statements like this and there will be no effective difference between the two.
Watch out, script kiddies: first you could get the death penalty, now you may not get a trial.
Whatever happened to "the zen of self-regulation" (Score:3, Insightful)
<SARCASM>It may also violate the EULA Bush agreed to by opening the shrinkwrap on Microsoft's campaign donations, so it probably won't be happening.</SARCASM>
I got a chance to see the software... (Score:2)
Re:I got a chance to see the software... (Score:2)
Perhaps my favorite misspelling in the tech community is the REFERER tag. Apparently the spec was out and accepted and in use before the error was caught so nothing could be done. =]
"Help us" get rid of "Scare Quotes" (Score:2)
Rather pathetic to see them in an article like this; seriously, we expect Microsoft to do sneaky and scary things with their software, and everyone's on the watch for it. If we find something, there are no repercussions on them at all, it seems.
If the *government* were to be caught doing something sneaky on people's PC's, there would be a *huge* stink, heads would roll, etc.. Unlike Microsoft, they *are* accountable to the public,j especially with something as obvious as this. They're not stupid enough to put spyware or backdoors in stuff. With the slashdot crowd out there, they'd be caught in a second.
Anyone who's really worried about this has watched too many x-files episodes. Go out for a walk, get some fresh air, dudes.
Big picture... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it - if the ONLY backdoor your Windows machine has is Uncle Sugar's, you are doing pretty well, what with all the Trojans, spyware, viruses, and bugs.
MiB? (Score:3, Funny)
Standards Documents (Score:2, Informative)
America's Army (Score:4, Funny)
Well, this is new... (Score:3, Insightful)
But when the government itself comes out with software to expose security holes, it's called the "Gold Standard [cnn.com]".
What gives?
All I have to say is this: (Score:2)
Secure Stable User Friendly OS ? (Score:2)
Not that i care. 1 i dont live in the US, 2 i dont use MS products.
Quazion
I'm Doing MY Part (Score:3, Funny)
"Every American relies upon cyberspace and every American has to do something to secure their part of cyberspace," Clarke said of the plan, which will be released September 19 in Silicon Valley. . . Clarke spoke to reporters as well as government and corporate officials to announce government-wide standards for securing Microsoft's Windows 2000, the most commonly used operating system for government and corporate computers.
I'm doing my part. I'm using a Macintosh.
Re:Let's just say (Score:2)
try... open source and I'll compile it myself.
HA!
Re:Let's just say (Score:5, Funny)
if (slashdotId == "Wolfier")
{
openBackdoor();
sendHisDodgyWebAccessesURLsToUncleSam();
triggerIRSAudit();
}
Re:Let's just say (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let's just say (Score:2)
I say so long as their tools are this transparent then bring them on, the more help the better.
Re:Let's just say (Score:3, Insightful)
A government can be changed by the will of people, and exists to do the will of the people (even populism gives people what they think they want).
A corporation exists to make as many money as possible for their own benifit, that ever benifit that gives to society is a sideeffect.
I don't trust either of them.
You say a government can be changed by the will of the people...but at least for a while, incumbents had a better chance of being re-elected in the US Congress than they had in the Supreme Soviet, and the government has a power that, so far at least, even Microsoft doesn't have--they have an army and a police force that can come and take my property and throw me into jail if I don't go along. So far, I have yet to go to jail for not using Windows.
Besides, what's so great about the will of the people? I like my will better, and in a business transaction, I get to say what I trade my money or goods for; I don't have to go along with what the majority or its alleged representatives decide.
Re:Which version? (Score:2)
Re:Security, but halfway (Score:2)
Probably for the same reason it cares if you wear your seatbelt, etc. Doing so protects the interests of businesses, and saves people money. Thus, if it makes everyone's computer more secure, it will save businesses money and then save the consumer money, and save everyone big headaches.
Of course, that is one real big IF. More than likely it won't do jack crap and you'll have a conspiracy theorists everywhere crying Big Brother.
Re:US Gov't does make one good piece of software (Score:2)
Re:US Gov't does make one good piece of software (Score:2)
Re:mod me up (Score:2)
You're right. But there is no +1 Important.
Re:How to secure every PC in America* (Score:2)
Re:How to secure every PC in America* (Score:2)
Yeah, I could see that securing computers all over America.
How to secure every PC in America (Score:2)
2) a:\format c:
Re:If Al Gore made the Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame Florida.
Blame the puffy, middle aged guys named Chuck who think that the right to own firearms is the only civil libery that matters, since it's the only civil liberty you can use to make an exciting loud noise and put holes in cans.
Blame the old people who don't understand the modern world, and as such believe all of the knee-jerk blame laying that demagogues spew out on cable news channels 24 hours a day.
Blame people who see the whole world in moronic stereotypes. Blame the people who think that speech ought to be free only when it matches their own opinions. Blame the people with severely outdated understandings of capitalism who believe that big corporations can self-police and the market can self-regulate. Blame the people who are so cowardly that one terrorist attack which kills a few thousand people is justification enough to toss our most valued rights out the window. Blame the people who think that the flag (and not the hard-won liberties it symbolizes) is sacred. Blame the people who think that their religion should be forced on everyone, and think the founding fathers secretly wanted it that way despite rather obvious evidence to the contrary.
Most of all, then, blame an education system that doesn't teach people how to think in an objective or independant manner. Blame parents who don't teach their kids to evaluate information or ask questions.
But don't blame Florida -- those ballots were pretty confusing.
Re:Offtopic-2nd Amendment matters the most (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a gun license and am a gun owner, but I'm not stupid enough to buy into this ridiculous "citizens will overthrow a corrupt regime" conspiracy.
I think both sides of the gun control issue would do better if they understood weapons to be tools for self-defense and not tools for revolution or tools for crime.
Actualy, gun control laws do protect. In many countries gun licenses are earned through a process much like getting a driver's license. There are permits and tests which weed out those unable to perform the simplest attempts to use a weapon safely. In the US all you need is a face and you can walk off with a powerful and dangerous tool without the slightest idea of how to use it properly or how you can use it legally.
Also arguably the Brady bill has stopped many domestic disputes from turning into murder.
Getting even more Offtopic (Score:3, Insightful)
Firearms are tools, Period. They can be used for self-defense, for crime, or in some historic events, revolution. The history of the US, and the history of Switzerland, and now even Israel, show that honest folk are the majority, and the more of them that go around armed, the less crime there is, or the lesser the impact of it. (armed Israeli citizens where instrumental in stopping a recent machine gun attack at a shopping plaza. Armed El Al employees stopped the July fourth attack at LAX, not any US cops or TSA employees)
So if you think that Concealed Carry Permit holders should be licensed like drivers, I agree with you, provided they are licensed exactly like cars.
1. There are no restrictions on the possession or use of an automobile on private property. You can let your twelve year old son drive your F-350 across the family farm if you care to. The F-350 need not be registered or insured, though you'd have to pay taxes on it. The same should be true for guns- no restrictions on the possesion or storage of any reasonable firearm on one's own private property. (I happen to think reasonable is anything short of Anti Aircraft Batteries. Think it's crazy? The swiss allow their citizens to own anti aircraft guns. Your line may be different.)
2. Licenses are issued without question to all who qualify.
3. Associated costs are not so high as to prevent those who may need to defend themselves the most- poor inner city folk, for example.
4. A Concealed Carry Permit in one state is valid in any other.
5. There are no waiting periods associated with purchasing guns, nor any limit to the amount of guns one may purchase.
6. Operating or brandishing a firearm while intoxicated would definatly be illegal.
As for the brady bill saving lives- the Journal of the American Medical Association seems to think they haven't done a thing: "Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."
Full text here [ama-assn.org]
Based on that, I would have to say that the Brady Bill hasn't stopped any domestic disputes from turning into murder, Unless you find the AMA to be less than authoritative in matters of public health.
I personally think that waiting periods are actually more dangerous to women, as if they know they are in imminent danger from an estranged husband or boyfriend, they are unable to arm themselves. A woman with a gun can stop an attacking man. A woman without a gun stands much less of a chance, as most men are physically stronger and larger than most women.
Quoting Jacob Sullum from reason online (only because he says it well)Supporters say a waiting period allows potential murderers time to "cool off." But anyone who leaves the scene of an argument, drives to a gun shop, buys a weapon, loads it with ammunition, and returns to kill his interlocutor can hardly be said to be acting in the heat of the moment.
I was going to post alot more, then I realized you're in support of handguns for self defense, so if I prattled on, it would be pointless.
Switzerland?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I almost snorted coffee up my nose when I read 'Switzerland'. Let me explain something to you, and please think about it because it may help you realise why the rest of the world finds the USAs attitude towards guns really sad and frankly bizarre. Switzerland has a low crime rate mainly because the Swiss people are good, honest, non-violent people. The requirement for men to own a rifle is so that Switzerland can defend itself in the case of war. They do not carry the rifles around with them but keep them locked up.
Re:not so terrible? (Score:2)
You're either a troll, or a prepubescent who just doesn't know any better. The government has no ulterior motives? What about the kind, loving, altrustic government witholding treatment to African Americans with syphilis? Intentionally using SmallPox against Native Americans? What about all of our troops who have Gulf War Syndrome? What about the vietnam troops that were exposed to Agent Orange? My father still bears the scars from this.
The best policy when dealing with Government is a Russian proverb quoted by Ronald Reagan. Trust, but verify.
As far as a "greedy" corporation, let me ask you something. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Some corporations are definately bad, (cough cough microsoft cough cough) but others offer quality products at competitive prices without screwing over everyone they can. Now do me a favor: STEP AWAY FROM THE KARL MARX BOOK!
As far as the Apache fix.. it was all over the net. There was a multitude of sites you could get it from.
If any thing, the Government almost ALWAYS has an ulterior motive.
Re:Metal Gear Solid 2 (Score:2)