Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Government Politics

CNET's in-depth Coverage of IT security 193

Posted by Hemos from the good-coverage dept.
museumpeace writes "Starting today CNET news is running a 3 day series of reports and analysis of government and industry responses to the challenge of making America safe. While it primarily focuses on the technology content of these tangled issues, the report also tries to sort out the impact politics-as-usual is having on this presumably critical national concern...there is plenty of muck to rake: "As if chickpeas, lentils and mohair have anything to do with national security. One congressman even stated that a peanut subsidy, with a $3.5 billion price tag, 'strengthens America's national security,'" the 335,000-member group said. "Members of Congress have been cloaking old-fashioned pork in the robes of 'security' for the 'homeland.'"Lots to read here and registered CNET readers can put in their two cents. Throwing Money at Techology is the title of the leading report for today and that sums up much of what is going on."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNET's in-depth Coverage of IT security More

CNET's in-depth Coverage of IT security

Comments Filter:

  • Throwing Debt at Technology (Score:3, Insightful)

    by plover ( 150551 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:24AM (#10556008) Homepage Journal
    The title was misleading. Since Bush refuses to raise taxes on those of us who can afford it, he's raising the deficit instead. So we get to pay tomorrow for a false sense of security today.

    Thanks, George!

    • Re:Throwing Debt at Technology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:47AM (#10556167)
      So we get to pay tomorrow for a false sense of security today.

      Why wait?:-)

      Given where the dollar has been for the past few years, and the proportion of nerd-related goods which come from outside the US, you are paying for it right now. Not to mention what has happened to any dollar valued savings you might have.

      One of the, er, nice things about markets is that when a government makes it clear they are financially incontinent, everything adjusts around them as people try and find the best place to stand to catch the money being pissed away.

    • Re: mod parent down (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why was this modded to a 4? This is an obviously politically motivated and isn't insightful at all.

      If you lean left, you'll read this and say "right on!" If you lean right, you counter that the government will always waste the money it is given which is exactly why you shouldn't increase taxes.

      BTW, since the poster seem to be convenced that Bush is the only one who would increase the deficit, how do you think that Kerry is going to pay for all of his "I have a plan"'s. Also, when Kerry increases taxes
      • BTW, since the poster seem to be convenced that Bush is the only one who would increase the deficit, how do you think that Kerry is going to pay for all of his "I have a plan"'s.

        Now this is insightful, because it highlights the main problem in government today. There is no party that is fiscally conservative anymore. It used to be that the democrats would reccommend more spending for soical programs, the the republicans would argue against it. There was a nice balance of power, there the most importa
      • Obviously I put some politics in that post, but the comment about "false security" is non-partisan. It's about normal politicians (both parties) throwing a "security blanket" over holes. "Real" security hasn't been improved because of the tightened airport security. What has been improved is the public's feelings. After September 11th, the public cried "Do Something!" Congress acted in great haste to pass draconian laws restricting personal liberties (USA PATRIOT) and to throw billions of dollars at ev
    • taxes were originally introduced as a way to fund governments-starting with "royal" type governments,well.. as a way to fund government. Government doesn't work or produce, but they need tangibles to exist, tangibles and power over it's citizenry, a way to have a carrot and a stick. "Taxes"-enforced removable of portable wealth from individuals to a collective known as government- gave them both, so they were adopted by governmnets far and wide since way back in the olden days.

      That was then, this is now.
      • Government still needs to fund its actions. If government were to simply print the money needed to fund itself, the result would be rampant inflation.

        Tax, borrow, or inflate. Those are the choices.

      • Re:taxes=poisoned kool-aid (Score:5, Insightful)

        by linuxhansl ( 764171 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @12:32PM (#10557537)
        There is NO reason for taxes when the government prints up the money. None. Zero economic reason. there is a power wielding reason., but no economic reason. All the various tax schemes and codes at the federal "income" level, whether currently implemented or "proposed" by well meaning tax change advocates fail to address this glaringly obvious and undeniable data, and are a sham and a fraud and a mass fakeout, well meaning as they are.

        I call bullshit.
        The value of money is driven by supply and demand like everything else in a free market economy. If the government just prints money the value of money goes down and you get inflation. In the end more backnotes or higher numbers on them buy you (and the governent) exactly the same.

        That's also the reason why a tax-cut financed by borrowing money is no cut at all... A large deficit drives up prices, so your - oh so generous - tax cut, is eaten up by the higher prices. Why people still want tax-cuts in a time where not enough money is available is beyond me.
        Spending less money for the military and frist-strike wars is a better answer.

        Vendors collect money for goods assuming that this money can be paid towards other goods. If suddenly more money is available more people are willing to pay more for their goods... Hence the value of money goes down, prices go up.

        So... Taxes are necessary because money cannot just be printed, but it has to be shuffled around.

        Taxes are also necessary to allow the government to centrally organize:

        • social security
        • generally providing the infrastructure for companies to do business and employ people
        • law enforcement
        • providing traffic infrastructure
        • providing healthcare
        • providing security, milirary etc
        • etc

        • Please prove... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by zogger ( 617870 )
          ...where the money is not just printed up out of thin air now.

          Show me details of where "money" comes from. the actual digits, both electronic and paper and coin. I want to see detailed proof it's based on something other than just printed up paper or digitized up, created from nothing. We'll leave clad coins out because obviously they are metallic, and we'll both agree that paper and ink is paper and ink, what I am asking is proof that this money existed before the Fed decides to create it. Please provide
          • Money value comes from the fact that you can pay your debt with it.

            For the government a debt is paid for if you hand over the money to cover it. So after you proved that you had in fact handed over the bills and coins, no judge can force you with the letter of the law to further serve your debts. This makes money immensely valuable for you to have.

            Money thus is the means to end your debt. The interest rate is the relative cost for your debt. High interest rates make debts more expensive, low interest rate
    • that others need to pay more or can afford more. That is a very selfish attitude you have.

      Yes I said selfish. Real greed is telling others that they have more money than they need and hence should give some of it up.

      The budget problem isn't because of the tax cut, government revenues are actually up, the real problem is that they won't stop increasing the spending!

      It used to be that Republicans were fiscally conservative, but along came "Compassionate Conservatism" and all sense of budgets went out the

  • Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blue-Footed Boobie ( 799209 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:27AM (#10556030)
    I have no problems paying taxes if I know it isn't going into pork-projects and the pockets of Politicians. I doubt many would disagree...

    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by strictfoo ( 805322 ) <strictfoo-signup.yahoo@com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:54AM (#10556214) Journal
      How is this insightful?

      I disagree. There's tons of stuff that I (and many many others) don't feel my taxes should go to.

      Here's the neat thing: if you don't feel you're paying enough in taxes, donate your extra money! There's plenty of charities that will do much more with your donated money than the government would. A good place to start would be to look for orginizations that help provide quality jobs for lower income families.

      • I have a plan... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        Actually, two... there's two things I've always felt about taxes and taxation....

        First, I agree that we need a government to form a cohesive society, and that government necessarily needs funds to operate. But the question is how big does the government NEED to be and how much should it spend on certain programs.

        Idea 1: Keep income taxes, but allow people to decide where their income tax dollars go. For example, if I was a strong supporter of the "War on Terror", I could allocate more towards military..

        • Re:I have a plan... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by extra88 ( 1003 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @11:57AM (#10557186)
          My first reaction is to jump on you with both feet but you're probably a teenager because a lot of teens have thought of this. So I'll just ask some questions instead.

          Re: Idea 1: what if people don't put enough money toward something important, like defense? What if they put way, way too much money toward something, like defense?

          How does this make pork go away? This very example, peanut subsidies, has been cloaked in homeland security terms. Who desides which programs fall under which category? It would be decided by the same people who create or at least permit the nonsense that already happens.

          Re: Idea 2: How does a "use" tax pay for defense? If invading Iraq has made me less safe, can I get a tax refund? Are you going to tax the air I breathe to pay for EPA monitoring to help keep the air clean? Are you going to tax every ATM transaction to pay for FDIC? Under your plan, will there be a transition from FEMA providing money to hurricane survivors to collecting taxes from survivors for the cleanup?

          Since most "use" taxes these days are sales taxes imposed by states, let's get to some more local questions. When a recovering junky steals my car stereo to pay the use tax on methadone, do I pay the police officer filling out the report immediately or should the police station send me a bill? When the fire dept. puts out my kitchen fire, am I the only one who pays the tax or do my neighbors pay as well since the dept. prevented the fire from spreading to their houses? Do the people living two doors down pay less than the people next door? If I buy a 30' yacht,will it be tax-free if I only sail in international waters?

          OK, the point is, there's no way every tax payer can be well informed about how much money is needed for any given government activity and not only is there not a "use" to tie every government activity to, very often the people that are benefiting from that activity are the ones who cannot pay.
          • OK, the point is, there's no way every tax payer can be well informed about how much money is needed for any given government activity and not only is there not a "use" to tie every government activity to,

            Aaahh, I know my plan is not perfect (especially the first one, as you've mentioned), but it's really rooted in making people understand how their money is spent - most people would become outraged. They hear about a billion here or there for some stupid project, but think it's small beans and don't wor
            • I absolutely agree with your basic principle that there should be more transparency in government, particularly when it comes to how money is spent. However, I'm skeptical that it would cause that much outrage most of the time. TV programs do "the fleecing of America" segments and political candidates point out the pork barrel projects of their opponents but such attention often has little effect.

              For example, people who live in Hurricane or Earthquake prone areas should be paying MORE property taxes that

        • Re:I have a plan... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by eaolson ( 153849 )
          Idea 1: Keep income taxes, but allow people to decide where their income tax dollars go

          We have this now. It's called voting.

          • It doesn't work, and I'll tell you why...

            Take me, for example... I'm for smaller government, less regulations, blah blah blah... who is my candidate? Badnarik? I'm not going to vote for Mr. Blame America First, pull out of all other countries and hide our heads in the sand... it's one of the major disagreements I have with the LP...

            So vote for Kerry or Bush? Both big government spenders. We lose no matter what happens. Sure, you can have some effect at the lower levels, but as the government usurps
            • As all appropriations must originate in the House of Representatives, your vote for your US House district should be far more relevant to spending than your vote for President. That is to say, you need a Representative who agrees with you and yet won't just play the party game of "if (this->party == party_in_power) { support(); } else { oppose(); }". That is, a Representative who represents their constituents instead of their party--as if that would happen under our system.
      • While I agree with your endorsement of charity, I can't help but notice that you seem to equate involuntary servitude with voluntary association. There is a huge difference between donating to a true charity (one which doesn't accept government funding) and paying taxes. The former is supported by free will. The latter is supported by coercion (an explicit or implied threat of violence).
      • Here's the neat thing: if you don't feel you're paying enough in taxes, donate your extra money!

        If you really have a lot of "extra" money, donate it to worthy organizations regardless of how you feel about tax policy.
    • So what you're really saying is "I don't like paying taxes... to anyone."

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jim_Maryland ( 718224 )
        I think what BlueFoot was trying to say is that paying taxes is an understandable expense as long as it's not wasted. If so, I fall in that category. Government needs money to operate and I understand that some of my earnings must support it. Maybe I'm at the income level where the amount I pay in taxes isn't as noticable as when I first started my career. In general, I can afford most of the basics that I need to survive (a house in the DC Metro being the one thing that is beyond me at this time). Pay

        • Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Blue-Footed Boobie ( 799209 )
          That is exactly my point. There are certain programs that the Government (Both National and Local) run that Taxes need to support. Fire and Police are two local ones that spring to mind - two that I wouldn't want to be without. Where the problems come in is when Government programs are used as a way for corporations to basically steal money from the taxpayers. There needs to be a reform in how the Government handles bid-type projects and overspending. It's good that the Government pushes our tax money
        • See my post above ("I have a plan..."). Basically a "use" tax that replaces income and other taxes... all programs must be self funding or they die.
          • Roads and transportation infrastructure payed for with gasoline taxes and no other taxation can be used for it, and no taxes collected from gasoline sales can be used for anything else.
          • Fire, Police, Military - all protect citizens and their possessions. Could be partly based on a sales tax, but I'd say mostly based on property taxes.
          • Cigarette taxes are col
          • I really like those ideas. Live in a dangerous neighborhood that requires a larger police presence - then your taxes will be higher! I wonder how well these ideas would work in practice? Of course, that is assuming anyone could actually manage to get that type of system implemented.
            • Hmmm... of course, taxes wouldn't soley be coming from that neighborhood... could be city, county, state... after all, if you lived in a nice house NEAR a dangerous neighborhood, you probably shouldn't mind paying a little more to have it protected...
            • I doubt that government programs could solely support themselves as the benefits/users of the program may not be able to entirely afford the program but the indirect benefits affect many. You could also run into issues where cooperation between programs would be reduced due to no requirements from higher up the government chain. In some cases though, I do agree that self sustainment for programs should be possible, but I doubt it would work for all programs. If all programs were self funded, I think we'd
        • Fair enough. And I agree. But it seems to be as insightful as stating that the sky is often blue or sugar is usually sweet.

  • Aptly titled (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Taco John ( 771912 ) <tacojohn@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:27AM (#10556034) Homepage
    "Throwing Money" at the problem is exactly what some users do on a personal level. There's a huge number of people who buy a firewall, antivirus program, etc. when free tools exist, and when a different browser would help solve the problem immensely. Then after spending $100 on a security suite, they wonder why the computer is acting up. "I spent money to prevent this, it can't possibly break!"

  • keep supporting non-gov security efforts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10556035)
    I think this shows how important it is for the community to keep non-govt supported efforts going. See for example the Internet Storm Center [sans.org]. Just compare the amount of useful information they put out compared with what you get for your tax dollars from places like US-CERT.

    • Re:keep supporting non-gov security efforts (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MrRTFM ( 740877 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:16AM (#10556355) Journal
      While I agree that it's good to support non-govt efforts like the Internet Storm Center, you'd have to be out of your mind to think that tax dollars are 'wasted' on things like CERT.

      I believe that it is essential to have at least one team controlled by the government giving security reports. Sure they can fuck everyone over in hundreds of ways, but at least you can be sure that they will NOT 'hide' reports because it happens to be one of their products on the line.

      In terms of cost - it must be microscopic compared to the billions that are spent on other things - and for that small price, you get a CORPORATE INDEPENDANT SECURITY REPORT - which is completely unbiased.

      Money very well spent IMHO
    • Don't get me wrong, ISC is a great effort and the incident handlers are some of the best in the business. What is essentially a labor of love on their part is one of the best tools for security professionals to use.

      But, from your statement, I wonder if you have ever dealt with anything having to do with US-CERT other than their "public" product (e.g. what's on their website).

      More goes on behind the scenes than you may be aware of.

  • Stiff price tag? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xiando ( 770382 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10556036) Homepage Journal
    Isn't the amount of money thrown at computer security a little high compared to the cost of setting up a free firewall like iptables [linuxreviews.org] and verifying that it works with nmap a little high?

    • Re:Stiff price tag? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I so want you heading up cyber-security!

      IPtables and forget about it. Great strateragy there, pal.

    • No. (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      No. Not at all. Considering that 99% of people don't know what in the hell iptables is, couldn't figure out how to use it, never mind even run Linux, people are paying for ease of use. Somehow, I can't picture my parents using something like iptables...
    • Iptables is nice and I alway use it but I would never rely on it. The major problem with doing that is you are running all your security on the box you are securing this, IMHO, is never a good idea.

      its always better to have multiple layers of protection. The layers should always be a different type of protection (two of the sme boxes back to back will have the exact same vulnerability)..

  • Peanuts (Score:5, Funny)

    by spellraiser ( 764337 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10556039) Journal
    One congressman even stated that a peanut subsidy, with a $3.5 billion price tag, 'strengthens America's national security,'

    Of course. Peanuts can be highly effective weapons in the right hands. Especially if the terrorists have allergies. Or you could hurl the peanuts like small pebbles. Or you could .... um, look over there, a three headed monkey!

    • I think the point of agricultural subsidies as homeland security is that we will still be able to supply ourselves with these products in the case of war rather than be cut off from them once we are isolated from the rest of the world. Additionally, peanut oil is an outstanding sorce of biodiesel -- in fact, it was Diesel's first source.

      In politics, it's not as much what you would do in office
      ... but rather, what you would have to do to do it.

  • Keep throwing away money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tmoore09 ( 815119 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10556042)
    It seems to me they can never throw enough money at the IT security front to label it "Secure" there is always going to be a hole that can be found. Just like everything else that the goverment deals in they will continue to say they throw all this money on the issue only to have a considerable percentage moved to funding issues that the american public knows nothing about.

  • Open-source security software is a prerequisite. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10556043)
    If some of the US government institutions insist on using Windows, then they should at least use open source security software, such as TrueCrypt (truecrypt.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]).
    • Funny that you say that...

      I overheard a conversation today in which several people stated that open source security is a stupid idea. You have to close the source of the entire security, otherwise, people will take advantage of it.

      I thought that was interesting. Especially because we have phone systems that are just like regular phones. Until you put a key in them and turn it. When you do that, the phone becomes secure and you can talk about things at various classification levels.

      The short of

  • Thoughts on their strategies. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Faustust ( 819471 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:29AM (#10556046) Homepage Journal

    Day 1: Throwing money at technology. - I have no problem with this. Most of us in some way work in the IT field and this means more money and jobs.

    Day 2: Companies profiting from fear. - It's usually the stinkin' rich guys fearing for their luxury sports cars. This means they enlist security companies to safeguard themselves. More money for the little guys.

    Day 3: Global assault on anonymity. - This one I have a problem with. I'm a little worried about private companies tracking our movements and stalking us for our money. We have a choice not to deal with that company and take our money elsewhere. But when the government does it, there is no escape. It's either let them do it or flee the country (not a very easy task for some).
    • I'm just going to throw my opinion in here.

      > Day 1: Throwing money at technology. - I have no problem with this. Most of us in some way work in the IT field and this means more money and jobs.

      This is much like the phrase "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." in that it's simply not using the right tool for the job. When you simply through money at a problem it doesn't go away; it's masked. Rather than fixing the problem at the source, you obfuscate it and make it seem like it

  • Number of vetoes by Bush: ZERO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:29AM (#10556050) Journal
    The so-called "war on terrorism" has become the new cold war: excuses for politicians to spend, spend, spend, and if their political opponents oppose that spending then they can accuse them of being "soft on terror", or even colluding WITH the terrorists (Michael Savage, Anne Coulter, et al). Add to this the Bush administration's disdain against what they call the "reality based community" [talkingpointsmemo.com] (their words!) and you can see why our current fiscal and security situation is, in fact, so lacking.

    A split government is better for all America. I support Kerry and the Democratic party in general, but I am *extremely* skeptical about having a one-party government.

    • Does any American truly believe it when they accuse someone of siding with the terrorists? The idea is simply asanine, yet when two people disagree on even the most minor point, I guarantee that at least half of the time, someone will point and accuse the other of siding with the terrorists. Especially if they are unable to argue their stance effectively. It's absurd! Why aren't we slapping people silly for even suggesting the idea?
    • Number of vetoes by Bush: ZERO

      Why would there be any bills for him to veto when he has a friendly House and Senate? Since the republicans have a majority in both, the bills coming out of both should be inline with what he would want to sign.

      This isn't that tough to figure out.
      • If you assume that Bush is unable to form an opinion of his own, then you are correct. On the other hand, many Americans expect him to have a backbone and dissent from the party line when it's the right thing to do. (John Kerry and Bill Clinton both have done this many times, in case you were thinking of somehow blaming them.)
        • (John Kerry and Bill Clinton both have done this many times, in case you were thinking of somehow blaming them.)
          I dont think he was blaming them. I read his link. I think he was just making the point (that any remotely intelligent person already knows) - that Bush is a filthy liar. Kerry of course passed many bills in the senate. Ignore Bush's nonsense. And yes, any bills that were not passed were often as a direct result of Republican pig-headedness, using their malicious nature to block legitimate and
          • You understand that "my link" is to a non-partisan org, right?

            I dont think he was blaming them. I read his link. I think he was just making the point (that any remotely intelligent person already knows) - that Bush is a filthy liar

            Then I guess these people are lying too, right?

            "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

            "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant

  • Imagine that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ValuJet ( 587148 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:29AM (#10556055)
    Politicians using terroristic threats to pass more pork for their state. I for one am shocked and awed.

    I wish we could expect more from our elected officials but america is the house that greed built. It seems fitting that greed will be our eventual downfall.

    • Greed is the driving force behind all government. What reason does one have for joining the ruling class if not for the exclusive "right" to initiate force as a means to an end?

      There is nothing unique about the states that makes our government inherently more corrupt than other nations. The only real difference is that the US federal government has a much larger, more productive market to plunder from.

      (I realize there are a very select few representatives who actually work to reduce the powers of governme

  • Selling Security to America... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vexler ( 127353 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:36AM (#10556091) Journal
    Part of the problem is that the concept of security, paradoxically, works against the very thing that it is designed to protect. Government agencies compete for the same pool of money and resources; not everyone will win the biggest slice of the $86 billion package. There are inter-agency rivalries, "politics-as-usual", and even backstabbing, as each group struggles to even understand what "security" means, and what it means to them in particular.

    So, two things stand out to me:

    1) Inconsistency in the vision of national security as each agency/special interest group has its own idea of security, complicated by divergent political interests and even hostile political rivalries, and further hindered by the administration's own unclear directives of what constitutes national security (you can't lead from bottom-up; there must be a cohesive, unified vision from top-down).

    2) The notion of security, in a strange, Orwellian way, goes against some of the most treasured principles of this country: Freedom of thought, and freedom of the expression of those thoughts. The demands of national security will sometimes rely on classified government contracts, covert operations, and the famous "wall of silence". Yet the human nature in this nation is such that we have TV programs like "Fleecing of America" by NBC that will "expose" the "vast abuses" by the government, at the expense of the average working taxpayers. We all want to know, but our very own livelihood demands sometimes that we NOT know. The wherefores and the how-to's of this controlling of information are very much at the heart of national security. (This is part of the reason why something like 9/11 is not likely to happen in a totalitarian state like North Korea, where the concept of privacy and freedom of the individual is absent.)

    • Re:Selling Security to America... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A 9/11 is not likely to happen in the DPRK becuase Kim Jong Il is not stupid enough to piss off the middle east by meddling in their power struggles or supporting Israel's terrorism against the Palestinean people.

      It doesn't matter who is 'right' or 'wrong' in the middle east, the fact is that 9/11 and the situation in Iraq is simply a byproduct of our own foreign policy, not anything else.

    • Re:Selling Security to America... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:15AM (#10556345) Journal
      The notion of security, in a strange, Orwellian way, goes against some of the most treasured principles of this country: Freedom of thought, and freedom of the expression of those thoughts.

      The point is, Freedom is security. As you give up liberties so the government can protect you, you lose the power to protect yourself from the government. And history shows that people have a lot more to fear from their own government than from external threats.

      Unfortunately people tend not to focus on the large scale threats. Just like a hoodlum who knocks over a 7-11 gets 20 years while a crooked CEO who steals millions is slapped on the wrist, people ignore the fact that the US already imprisons a greater percentage of its population of any country in the world, in favor of less severe but more immediate threats.
      • The point is, Freedom is security.

        No. For instance, unless you were very unlucky you probably had much more security as a child than you do now because you had much less freedom.

        Someone else having complete control of your financial life meant you had no money troubles, Someone else deciding where you were allowed to go meant you had better physical security.

        And history shows that people have a lot more to fear from their own government than from external threats.

        And most child abuse happens within

        • Someone else having complete control of your financial life meant you had no money troubles, Someone else deciding where you were allowed to go meant you had better physical security.

          Maybe. Maybe not. This assumes that the people managing your life are smarter and/or better-informed than you are. When you're talking about the parent-child relationship, that is generally true, though not in all cases. When you're talking about the government-citizen relationship, it's usually true in some areas, and no

          • The real question about our government's swaddling security measures is whether they provide us more freedom than they take away.

            Only if you value freedom above all else. For most people this is not the case.

            Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that for most people freedom is not an end at all, but a means. The remaining few go off to live in caves up mountains in the hope they will be forgotten and so have as much freedom as the laws of physics etc will allow them.

            Security is useless if it does not allow

      • As you give up liberties so the government can protect you, you lose the power to protect yourself from the government. And history shows that people have a lot more to fear from their own government than from external threats.

        History may show that, but do you know what protects Americans from their government? The second amendment. While people can whine and moan about America's "Gun Culture" the fact is the American government could never turn into a dictatorship since the Amount of American Citizen

    • Re:Selling Security to America... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:27AM (#10556445) Homepage Journal
      You are, like most people, and nearly everybody in Congress, confusing the idea of secrecy with the idea of security. A properly secure system is one with the absolute minimum of secrets needed to secure it. Secrets are too fragile; once you lose one, you can never get it back. Modern cryptosystems are a perfect example of good security. Almost everything is open; the algorithm is open, the implementation is open, the protocol is open, the key generation method is open. The only thing that's secret is the actual key itself, which is only a few hundred or thousand bits of information.

      Making every government operation secret will not make us safer. A terrorist organization will be able to find out as much as it wants about our power, water, and transportation infrastructure, whether we let them have it or not.

      Our government is trying to keep everything from the public view, despite the fact that it's ineffective. This might be because they're stupid, which is highly plausible. It might be because they're trying to give the appearance of helping, which is also highly plausible. Lastly, it might be because they've seized on this golden opportunity to expand government power and secrecy with the support of the public. This one is sure to be popular among the tin-foil-hat crowd.

  • Rick Santorum... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nicedream ( 4923 ) <brian@nopantsTEA.org minus caffeine> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:55AM (#10556222) Homepage
    ...during the gay marriage debate:

    Isn't that important? Isn't that the ultimate homeland security -- standing up, defending marriage, defending the right for children to have moms and dads, to be raised in a nurturing and loving environment? Isn't that what this debate is all about?

    Link [foxnews.com]

  • Oh No! (Score:4, Funny)

    by CodeWanker ( 534624 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:55AM (#10556225) Journal
    Throwing Monkeys at Technology????? Will this outsourcing nightmare never end???????

  • Umm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by xeon4life ( 668430 )
    ...chickpeas, lentils and mohair...
    ...peanut subsidy...
    ...pork in the robes...

    Anybody else get hungry after reading this...?

  • Misleading title indeed (Score:5, Informative)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:24AM (#10556425) Homepage Journal
    because the original CNET article is titled " Throwing Money at Techology". It is *not* just about IT security, but overall ("homeland" if you like) security and how it's being used as a catch all excuse to justify ridiculous steps by the government agencies.

    One particularly large area where money is being aggressively thrown at is Technology, which is being seen as the solution to all the security problems (diplomacy, better foreign policy would work better IMHO), which is where the article gets the name from. It's not just about IT (or "cyber") security.

  • For all the billions (did I see $85 billion in the article?) for the Department of Homeland Security, there is a measly $10 million devoted to all research. Of that, $5 million goes to "cybersecurity" research. It was no wonder that the cybersecurity chief resigned.

    To put the research numbers in perspective, the National Institute of Health regularly sees INCREASES in annual budget in tens of millions of dollars.

    At least our peanut crop with its $3.5 million dollar homeland security subsidy (mentioned i

    • Does anyone know how much money went to Imigration and Naturalization Services (INS) to improve border security?
    • Are you really trying to equate the two types of research?

      When you learn how to cure a disease, you learn how to cure it for all the people of the world. Forever.

      When you fix some computer security issue. You fix it on a subset of computers that OS/app runs on, which will last maybe 5-10 years till the next generation of equipment/OS's comes out making that fix obsolete. And in the end that doesn't even matter because some user is going to give out their password for a piece of chocolate.

      • Are you really trying to equate the two types of research?

        When you learn how to cure a disease, you learn how to cure it for all the people of the world. Forever.

        When you fix some computer security issue. You fix it on a subset of computers that OS/app runs on, which will last maybe 5-10 years till the next generation of equipment/OS's comes out making that fix obsolete.
        I know you meant well, but your analogy fails. Once we thought we'd "cured" TB and polio, but they are making major comebacks due pri

  • Journalistic Inattention (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jak163 ( 666315 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:30AM (#10556473)
    I used to work at Law Journal Extra, which was a gopher system run on Pipeline software, later bought by Law.com. There I read that the Internet was based on open protocols and was basically insecure and highly susceptible to malicious activity, which would become a big problem as it became commercialized. Then I became an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine and tried to get them to run an article about cyberterrorism. They didn't have much interest in that although they did run several articles about terrorism and the threat of WMD in the hands of terrorists. Since then there have of course been billions of dollars in damage due to viruses, and the security situation has gotten so bad that a teenager in the Philippines could put together a virus using tools that could bring down major web sites that handle tons of commercial activity, but they've still only run one piece addressing this to my knowledge. Notably the administration has been wrongly focused on the threat of WMD and not basic infrastructure security. This is because of a general lack of understanding about computers among journalists and policymakers IMO.

    • Re:Journalistic Inattention (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:53AM (#10556662)
      "Then I became an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine and tried to get them to run an article about cyberterrorism."

      Do they print fiction?

      "Since then there have of course been billions of dollars in damage due to viruses"

      Which isn't terrorism. Similar to the number of people admitted to hospital each year after stabbing themselves with forks isn't terrorism. Exactly in the same way that spam isn't terrorism.

      "security situation has gotten so bad that a teenager in the Philippines could put together a virus using tools"

      Or Minnesota. That's not really a problem with security per se, it's just that nobody has settled on what is the best way to stop dumb people contracting viral infections; large companies contracting viral infections should look towards spending their own money rather than government cash based on a fairly spurious 'clean up' fee, when it was probably cost-cutting that left them vulnerable in the first place.

      "This is because of a general lack of understanding about computers among journalists and policymakers IMO."

      Well you wouldn't have helped by characterising viruses as 'Cyberterrorism' any more than WMD should include methlabs. Why do you think that people have been generally underwhelmed by governmental response to computer problems?

      It's not so much that their intentions aren't good, it's just they miss the mark so much that you can almost hear the noise of hands hitting foreheads across the globe when the latest 'idea' hits the legislative floor.

  • Owing to the large requirement for nuts of all kinds to run Government, provide spin-doctoring, maintain talk-radio and advise SCO, it is absolutely essential that additional monies be spent on maintaining the nut surplus of this country.


    Without an adequate reserve of nuts, the only President to ever lose a wrestling match with a pretzel would have no hope of being re-elected.

  • though it may not be totally be connected with the topic:
    are you throwing money way more than what is being protected?

  • I Want My Peanuts Protected! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I certainly am willing to pay extra taxes to have my penis protected. Oh, "peanuts" ... Never mind.

  • fundamental errors (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard@@@ecis...com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @08:51PM (#10561203) Homepage
    The approach here is "treat the symptons" instead of the cause. The result is a gigantic pork barrel whose unfortunate side effect will be a USA where "papers, please" will be an everyday event instead of something only seen in World War II movies in countries ruled by the bad guys.

    The cause of this wave of terrorism really doens't have a lot to do with US government policy and less to do with Israel/Palestine.

    It is because there is a great deal of anger and frustration brought on by the use of the money we have spent on oil in the Middle East not on public education and infrastructure and the other things required to build a First World society, but on building up the bank accounts of the kings and sheiks and princes whose countries have the oil and perhaps more important, on the security apparatuses and military organizations necessary to keep angry internal customers from putting them permanently out of business.

    Their main tactic for keeping their citizens off their backs has historically been using religion as a tool to persuade their people that their troubles are not a result of their own government's inaction, but caused by EVIL WESTERN INFIDELS!!!

    That's most of us.

    In the course of this, they've worked with their religious institutions and religious leaders to create a generation of anti-Western fanatics ripe for exploitation by terrorists and are funding the spread of this ideology everywhere in the Muslim world.

    The long-term solution to this is to reallocate much of the "War on Terror" funding to programs to replace oil from the Middle East with carbon-neutral biomass and solar energy solutions like the Solar Power Satellite program scrapped by the Bush Administration. Simply deleting the "snake oil" items like biometric ID from the anti-terror budget should by itself fund a good part of this. A rational analyis of the budget should find many places where we can cut funding without cutting security, and a few places where we should spend more money.

    There is also an excellent chance that energy alternatives will also wind up much, much cheaper than $53 a barrel oil, whose price is escalating with no relief in sight, unless we make some. Stronger money, stronger nation, and this also will make it possible to spend more money on the military in the long run should we find that we have to.

    Cutting off the funding the oil nations require to keep their governments in business against the will of their citizens and to export terror into the Western world means future terrorist efforts will have to be locally funded.

    While this doesn't mean that terrorism will be eliminated, it will reduce its incidence and severity to something law enforcement can deal with as European governments have successfully dealt with terrorists for generations. The older Europeans around here will remember terrorist organizations like Baader-Meinhof and the Red Army, and that law enforcement working with intel agencies nailed them. The people responsible for the al-Queda bombing in Spain are already behind bars. Did the Europeans turn their societies into police states to make themselves safe from terror? Other than the Brit experiment with Orwellian surveillance they are engaged in, no.

    This kind of bill does not need to be passed in the heat of an election. We are more secure with NO law rather than this one. Buying snake oil doesn't buy security, it's more likely to be a political payoff to the snake oul vendors using our money.

    For more information on the technology side of energy replacement, click here [ecis.com] for a summary with links to the DOE, University of New Hampshire, and NASA sites relevant to a program of this sort.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Close