Former CIA Head Calls for Limiting Access to the Internet 935
GMill writes "Former CIA head George Tenet has called for limiting access to the internet to only those who take security seriously and that the industry should 'lead the way' in restricting access. Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?"
It obviously means (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It obviously means (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It obviously means (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It obviously means (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It obviously means (Score:4, Funny)
You've been 0wn3d
Let's see what we can find. Pr0n, pr0n, pr0n, illegal mp3's, pr0n, pr0n, and ... hey, you sick bastard, what's this - MS Office? Disgusting!
Re:It obviously means (Score:5, Funny)
You'll never find me...
Re:It obviously means (Score:3, Funny)
U g0t a r8tsh311 b4kd8r 0n p0rt 1337!!!!
Pwnz0r3d!!
Re:It obviously means (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It obviously means (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't stop at your porn collection if you are one of those troublemakers who has a tendancy to speak his mind.
#1) Ever critcise the president? No problem, it's a free country (but you are now known to be a possible dissident/anti-government radical).
2) Do you support or promote privacy and/or anonymity rights? Not an issue (but you are now suspected of
possible conspiracy due to your desire to hide your actions and communications).
3) Use email to ask your mom to pick up some stuff from the store? By itself, this is no issue (but the fact that you are an anti-establishment radical who wishes to hide your actions from the government makes the email asking mom to pick up some rubbing alcohol and chlorine bleach indicates otherwise).
The actual innocence of you actions has no influence on whether you will be investigated, suspected, or harrased by the intelligence community. It is all up to thier interpretation. If you are lucky, you will never be on thier radar. If you are not, your life will change, and not for the better. You may never know that (or if) you are being monitored and investigated and it is unlikely that you could prove that you were (even if you do know) unless actual charges are brought.
Welcome to the new America. Of course, you have no real reason to complain about this. These measures are necessary to make us safer and to "protect our Freedom(tm)". You should be happy that such efforts are being made. You can rest assured that no govenment official, employee, or contractor would ever abuse these regulations and capabilities for personal gain.
Just be happy that you have nothing to hide.
And be sure to keep it that way.
Always.
Re:It obviously means (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I love the show Cops, becaus I like seeing people who dick over other people get caught and punished. But a phrase that always bugs the shit out of me is, "If you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to fear."
Tell that to the families of people that have been executed, and posthumously proven innocent.
Re:It obviously means (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that phrase is found, quite appropriately, in the Declaration of Independence [indiana.edu]:
Re:It obviously means (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you ever mention smoking pot or underage drinking while online?
What about criticizing corporations? Or complaining about poor service at a local store?
"...openness makes the system vulnerable, Mr. Tenet said."
Taking quotes out of context is fun!
Same old America. (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who lived through the '60s - with the Red Squads, COINTELPRO, and a plethora of other government responses to the Vietnam non-War, I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who knew people who were Freedom Riders in the '50s, with water cannon, lynchings, axe-handle beatings, and other governmental and government-winked-at "private" organizations such as the KKK (largely manned by goernment employees in their "off hours"), I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who knows the history of the Red Scare / "McCarthy Era" witch hunts (and indeed was toddling during that time) I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who, in his youth, knew some old fogies who were active in the original labor movement (Wobblies - never knew any Knights of Labor though there actually were a few still around), when corporate labor relations involved Pinkertons and machine guns, I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who knows of the history of US, I can attest that this sort of thing has been going on, decade by decade, since at least the Alien and Sedition acts in Jefferson's time (and even before, under other auspices).
Every generation is born ignorant. Its members have to discover for themselves that government officials abuse power and need to be kept in check, that institutions aren't enough, that eternal vigilance (and occasional difficult and expensive effort) is the price of freedom.
This is why the US Constitution consists mainly of carefully-defined limits on the governments' actions. The founders were VERY familiar with the tendency of governments run by real people to gravitate into oppression, constantly finding ways to increase their own power. They did their best to create institutions to limit that trend, and provide the citizens with ways to fight back. But they didn't expect printed words to work on their own.
It has actually worked out far better than their expectations. (Jefferson, for instance, thought civil wars would still be required, at intervals averaging less than twenty years.)
But it still isn't perfect. And while the long-term trendline has been in the right direction, there's a lot of noise in the short term. And keeping the trend going the right direction requires constant effort.
Of course part of the mechanism of control is to keep the controlled ignorant of their own history, so they don't see the puppet strings until they notice being tugged. Thus it's often a surprise when you run into it in some new circumstance. And it's tempting to assume, thanks to this deliberate under-education, that things were fine until the latest outrage was instituted, and now they're going to hell.
Welcome to the real world, where the Tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.
But HANG ON to that outrage! Yes things have been bad - and far worse than they are now. But they're SUPPOSED to keep getting BETTER. When somebody finds a new way to make them worse again, it's time to FIGHT IT!
That things ONCE were WORSE is no reason to let them become bad once again, and knowing they once were worse is no reason to slack off.
Let the knowlege that governments tend to get on everyone's back help you in your fight to get them off - off your back, and everyone elses.
You're fighting the good fight.
This is one piece of your generation's opportunity to be patriots and heros.
Re:It obviously means (Score:5, Funny)
There is an interesting point raised here about the Americentrocity (Amerocentrocity?) of the internet.
The US appears to be getting more and more draconian with it's protection (or lack thereof) of civil liberties, civil privacy in particular. I am looking now at doing some web connected stuff with very sensitive information (medical) and, although I haven't researched it yet, I have a strong feeling that US hosting will not be an option due to laws that allow the govt to confiscate/view that data. (Please do correct me if you think I am in error here - in fact, there is an "Ask Slashdot" question in there somewhere)
It should be noted that I do host a few things, but nothing containing anything more sensitive than CC details. Up until this project, the US has always been the place I have hosted (the lowest price for the best comms).
Further, consider the event that US internet functionality is severely curtailed (and I think the logistical and technical problems in doing that make that eventuality extremely unlikely). How functional and viable would the internet be with only partial US involvement? Is the US so important to the net at large, that the administration there would be able to effectively force all other nations to fall into line with their policy (another "Ask Slashdot")?
I am not American, nor have I ever lived there, but, I strongly suspect the answer to my second question could be "yes".
Re:It obviously means (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll have to encrypt it before it leaves the client machine, store it only in encrypted form on the server, and decrypt it back on the client machine.
In other words, you're looking at more than a simple web application.
Now there are some things to be said in favour of hosting in the US, in that, should there be a 3rd-party intrusion, the civil penalties can bankrupt the perp. Unfortunately, as you seem to be aware, the govt will claim "eminent domain" when
Re:It obviously means (Score:4, Funny)
"IRC, where the men are men, the women are men, and the 13 year old girls are FBI agents."
Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, we can get rid of all those terrorists, child porn mongers, spammers, communists, hate groups, spyware writers, homosexuals, political dissentors, darwinists, gamblers, sex-ed supporters, atheists, blue-staters, teenagers, abortionists, people who confuse decent Americans by engaging in satire and especially those people who question electronic voting. Finally we'll fix the internet and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there. Heck, we've already got an FCC all set up, we can just put Michael Powell in charge.
Thank God we live in an age where we can finally bring about the society we as Americans so richly deserve.
The easy way to do it (Score:3, Funny)
--LWM
Re:The easy way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
<scary>The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.</scary>
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bash bush for Tenet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tenet was appointed by Clinton. Tenet approved of CIA operatives who openly attacked Bush, wrote books condemning Bush foreign policy, and in general, ran an operation that was nothing more than a rogues country club.
Tenet's position here is consistent with current bureaucratic thinking (centralize control over commerce in the Federal government) that began with the US Supreme court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn. [csamerican.com]
Legitimate critism of Bush should be applied for not being radical enough in opposing central control of the economy. In Bush's defense, he has his hands full with a Federal government out of control (think the CIA is the only agency that acts in opposition to the needs and will of the people? DOE, IRS, DOA, etc. have all spun free from rule by the people and instead work to rule the people).
Perhaps the worst thing about Tenet's proposal is that central control simply does not work in opposition to decentralized threats. Consider the Internet as an evolving immune system; Tenet's solution is to create a bubble and "keep all the germs out." Unchallenged, these systems will be protected briefly, and then completely overwhelmed in a catastrophic loss. Implementation of Tenet's proposal would require adoptation of centralized standards, which increases the homogeneous nature of the Internet. Students of catastrophic failure in homogeneous systems often point to the Ireland potato famine of the 19th century as a classic example of why this centralized, command-driven model simply cannot handle descentralized, organic risk.
Tenet's a fool and his agency was an unfortunate abuse of taxpayer money. Tenet is "Microsoft will tell us what security model to use, and we'll make the world security by making a law requiring its use" model. Hopefully some minimal change will occur out of the Bush overhaul. If you're pro-security and anti-centralization, you should support this administration's efforts.
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:2, Funny)
Your indecent use of the swear words ... (Score:5, Funny)
Have a nice day!
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant. Bravo, sir!!!
....
Here's a few more
Finally we'll fix the copyright laws and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the democracy and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the constitution and make it safe for all the little children and honest h
That's Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
He made a joke. Normally, that would get +5 Funny, except that he's spoofing right-wingers. In /. land, that counts as insightful.
Injecting "Bush is an idiot" posts into random threads is a sure fire way to boost your karma.
Re:That's Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Bush is an idiot!"
Can't wait to see my Karma boosted!!
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The Bible doesn't say it's OK to sin anywhere. While it is true that acts don't save or condemn us, maintaing a sinful lifestyle is not beneficial (to those sinning or those around them). Read up where Paul says (paraphrased), "If I get grace to cover my sin, and it's good to get grace, shall I sin more so I get more grace? By no means!" to address an incorrect view about what it means to deal with sin.
2. "Pu
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Funny)
This is a surprise. I thought that God was supposed to be in charge. Now you seem to be saying that God has no control over the rules of an inflexible system that automatically sends us to hell for "sins" (which are apparently unavoidable, since "all people sin"). The best he can do to fight the system is to save a few of us.
Poor God. Just another victim of an inflexible Universe that is beyond his control.
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:4, Funny)
He's actually very kind and deserves our praise and honor.
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if God tells you to strap on a belt of explosives and slaughter the infidels, well, that's His will and you'd better obey, right?
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
That has not stopped adherents from your own favorite religion from torturing and slaughtering people throughout history, or even "merely" continuing to engaging in persecution and oppression because well, that's His will and you'd better obey.
The point isn't any specific "message" from god, but the general problem with obediently obeying ANY "instructions from god" which are in fact nothing more than a messages related to you by other people. And no, citing some interpretation of some translation of some translation of some translation of some random book written by some random people a few thousand years ago (aka scripture) does not make it The Word Of God. And which ever book you happen to choose as your Holy Scripture, while it may certainly contain some bits of great human wisdom, is still nothing but a message written and translated and interpreted by people.
Taking mesasages that all originate from people and obediently obeying it as the Word Of God has (at the worst of times) been the single greatest source of atrocities and cruelty and suffering and wars and misery and oppression and injustice in all of human history.
Sure you'll dismiss such things as people "going astray" and not actually following the Word of your Scripture, but they all believed they were following The Word Of God just as much as you do, and had just as good a claim to it. And while we don't see many Christian suicide bombers running around (except maybe at abortion clinics), even modern US Christianty is hardly free from less flagrant persecution and oppression and injustice.
-
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Quoted and rephrased;
Here's something to ponder ... though perls before swine and all that [ishwar.com] ... when you say 'God' in earnest, what thoughts do you have about God?
What I mean is this: List off all the things that God has as you understand them. Be careful, thoughtful, and honest; feel free to add or strike things from your list. Even being beyond comprehension is a thing for your
Good. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Informative)
Show of hands how many people in the US have failed their driving test? It ain't many. Go to Germany and plenty of people have failed...some more than once.
It costs serious cash and time to take the training; as such the people value their 'priviledge' as opposed to us Americans who 'expect our right' to be able to drive.
Oh yeah I love it when a sig actually relates to a topic
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Yes because the decisions will be made by tech savvy politicians who can not be bought. They will graciously accept the Linux lobbyists offer of "going dutch" for happy meals and discussing the open source security model over the offers of fat campaign coiffers etc...
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Man... (Score:5, Funny)
The first step in limiting the Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just the first step in limiting people's free speech rights on the 'net and turning it into a bland, corporate organ, similar to today's TV.
Re:So...let me see if I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Better security for businesses and critical infrastructure? Fine, great! Turning the WHOLE internet into a high security grid? Not helpful, not healthy, but easy to propose and advantageous to entities who don't like free speech to be quite so free.
It's obvious what he wants.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... free PR from the easily excitable? He's a washed up political hack who needs some press so he can either run for office or get a few more lucrative speaking engagements.
Re:It's obvious what he wants.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's obvious what he wants.. (Score:3, Insightful)
For 2 (3?) administrations he ran the largest and most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world.
Whatever his opinions are- they're worth noting.
Government official mentality... (Score:5, Interesting)
So the Internet can be full of organized corruption? Pay offs, rules only followed by those that don't have enough money and power?
If there is data accessible via the Internet that "terrorists" could use to "attack" us then that data needs to be moved off of the Internet. The general public should be allowed to travel around without restrictions or control.
Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."
What exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that an open consortium should sit down and discuss how we should build a more secure network that is still able to communicate like the old one? Or does he mean that we should all be locked down with hardware and software tied with "trusted computing" which will lead to further domination by a small group of companies?
Personally, I believe that the United States needs to understand that they aren't the only entity in the world and that they cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about "terrorism". What would have happened if the Internet was this popular during McCarthyism? Would we have had to make sure we were all secure because of the over-inflated threat that the Soviet Scare created?
Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of. No matter what we do they will always find a way to circumvent our methods (ie scanning for bombs on planes when instead they used the plane as the bomb itself or checking for the outlines of guns and knives when they used a boxcutter).
Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?
He wants government control where government control is unnecessary. What they need is to stay out of the lives of the public and keep up with the protection of the entities that they already have control over. Sorry but Big Brother doesn't do anything but piss people off. I highly doubt that the "threat" is going to attack us through private channels over asymmetric broadband connections and dialup modems.
I realize it is difficult for someone living their life in a position of authority in the high ranks of a government funded organization to understand what the people want but that's exactly why his comments need to be fought tooth and nail.
I'll end my rant with: Keep your fucking own data safe from the "threat" without infringing on the freedoms created without government control.
Re:Government official mentality... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I believe that the United States needs to understand that they aren't the only entity in the world and that they cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about "terrorism".
While there is some hope in other nations, the US seems to continuously invent new means of suppression and export them around the world.
Regulation of the internet starts here, just like DVD encoding, DMCA, patriot act, etc. It becomes fashionable because the USA set the standard and most governments have a natural tendency to want to regulate things.
Look at all the ammo Bush and predecessors have given to repressive governments all around the world.
Re:Government official mentality... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like authorizing torture and thinking of ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention with imaginative and legally unstable word games?
Or getting the UN to declare that the citizens of a country that's occupied by another country can't resist violently?
Or what about providing a template for holding "elections" that are quickly and easily handed over to the "right" person regardless of who the citize
Re:Government official mentality... (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say anything about the war in Iraq. I was talking about what Bush has done to our civil liberties and to human rights overall. Most of the complaints I have are about stunts he pulled BEFORE invading Iraq.
What makes you think that the war in Iraq justifies things like The Patriot Act? Would you also have excused Stalin's execution of 20 million of his own people if you learned he built a couple orphanages on o
Re:Government official mentality... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government is not paranoid about terrorism (though many citizens are, especially in the Red States). Terrorism is just a smokescreen. A boogyman that lets the government do as it pleases. A monster in the closet to be whipped out everytime the populace decides to get uppity or question the actions or motivations
Re:So what you're trying to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
What...?? (Score:2)
Re:What...?? (Score:2)
I think you meant to say "smoking." What is this man smoking? And that's a rather stupid question; it's clearly crack.
Re:What...?? (Score:3, Funny)
Adorable. Absoultely adorable. That is just about the sweetest thing I've heard since my daughter read me her christmas wish list to Santa.
It means (Score:3, Interesting)
It also means that they want some better backdoors built into existing encryption products, but the CIA is having a hard time getting them into the open source ones.
I wonder if the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc has people who help program OSS so that they can incorporate little hooks into things?
Re:It means (Score:2)
I'm sure the political dissenters in places like China who use the Internet to communicate with each other and the outside world will greatly appreciate their anonymity being taken away like this. Well, at least their governments will appreciate it.
I don't think... (Score:2)
Patriot Act v2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Right end, wrong means (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it makes sense... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's because those Islamic Terrorists learned how to fly jet airliners on-line! Yeah! Oh... Um...
Because the idea is easily enforceable and people outside the United States will have no choice but comply! No? Crap...
While this sounds good, it probably won't be. (Score:2)
Key word "former" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Key word "former" (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the downside of taking one of those jobs, but true nonetheless.
sPh
Global world, not national (Score:2, Insightful)
correction (Score:3, Funny)
More legislation, more rules (Score:2, Funny)
Wild West? (Score:2, Interesting)
Vital industries... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vital industries... (Score:3, Insightful)
holy crap it's worse than that man.
the computer systems that run the equipment and chemical dosing pumps as well as the high capacity pumps at a local city's water plant have Internet access...
I worked there when they were installing it the "management" demanded that they had the ability to log into the systems and monitor the employees from home. Against the protests of the engineers that designed the system, the crew installing it, an
My idea.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hooray! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure this guy is just attempting to curry favor in order to get into my inner sanctum when the Revolution comes. George, I get your message loud and clear and I assure you that The Party will have a special place for you! Call me and we'll do lunch!
What all other 9/11 talking heads want (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing everyone of the experts who felt disparaged by the 9/11/ commission want. To prove they are indeed experts and that because of 9/11 they are smarter than everyone else and should be taken (read that paid) seriously for their trivial understanding of the problem.
If our weakness is that we are to dependant on the internet, fix that fact first. Most govt agencies have no plan for if the internet was seriously down. So, they have put all their eggs in a basket that they don't control. The solution could be one of two things A) control the basket...can't work. B) Learn what systems need to be redundant without the internet and how to accomplish it. Difficult but more plausible.
Non-state Actors (Score:2)
He said known adversaries, including "intelligence services, military organizations and non-state actors," are researching information attacks against the United States.
So anyone who isn't Alec Baldwin?
- sm
What exactly does he want? (Score:2)
What law enforcement and lawyers get loophole in the system where the government can disconnect a person's or company's right to use the internet. So if they want someone off the internet they need to prove that they are not secure thus not taking internet security seriously. Which is a lot easier then proving that they are providing wrong doing?
The Golden Age of the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that this could bring about a new golden age of the internet, for the people who really believe in it, and the security of it. Certainly if we were to block access to it from those who are not secure, there would be a new and revived interest in becoming secure and knowledgable about security. Back in the late 80s when the Internet started, people like Sir Tim Berners Lee and Bruce Perens and other pioneers were instrumental in crusading against the sort of exploits we see today. This search for k
Re:The Golden Age of the Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Accurate reporting? (Score:2)
So UPI/Washington Times didn't actually hear the speech, did they? They only got the quotes from secondhand sources which may or may not have had a bias against Tenet. The other quotes from the story imply that Tenet was more concerned about making the net more secure rather than preventing access.
Limiting net access still makes for an interesting discussion.
Eh (Score:2)
Damn this guy is scary. (Score:2)
Ben Franklin (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see the Internet route around this (Score:2)
sPh
Using the internet should be licensed... (Score:2)
Power (Score:2)
Ah..hum..well..Never mind..
This guy is just an insensitive clod who lost his job. I don't care.
Do I pre-qualify? (Score:2)
That said, rather than only allowing use of the internet to those who 'take security seriously', how about mandating software to be basically secure?
Whose fault is it that a XP machine is 0wzeD within 2 minutes of being connected to the net? Should someone be required to know the ins and outs of Windows exploits in order to use Windows, or should Windows come secure by default?
Most people aren't going to learn, until you force them to. They might miss Will and Grace. All George
This Nugget of wisdom from..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Inferior & Vulnerable tools is the weakness. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying roads cause accidents and chemical spills because they are there. That is utter nonesense and complete BS.
The internet is the road. And the accidents people are having include: adware/malware, virii, worms, and hacked systems. The internet isn't the cause of this, it is the road upon which this happens.
It happens because companies built crappy operating systems that focuses more on bells and whistles than solid and secure software engineering.
It happens because companies create crappy virulent programs that infects peoples' computers, making them even less secure(ie, adware/malware).
This is NOT the fault of the internet, but rather the fault of the people who continue to create weak tools for people to use on the internet.
Another problem takes the form of weak habits of the average user out there. The concept of security is so absent as to be unknown. Almost every person I used to talk to about security always said the same thing: "Why would anyone break into my computer? There's nothing important on it!" Thankfully, today, most of the people I talk to who have ANY contact with tech are more prone to ask me "Can you give me any tips on how to make my computer safer?".
If the end user doesn't take steps to ensure that their own computers are safe when the people who sold them the computers don't, then they are just sitting ducks on the internet. Their computers end up contributing to the problem.
The internet doesn't need to be restricted. From what most security reports say, only one thing needs to be restricted or re-engineered: Microsoft's Windows operating system(all versions) and the applications that they create(IE, MS OFFICE, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc.)
If MS can become secured, then a significant chunk of the security issues on the net will go away.
Article seems to be missing a key point (Score:3, Interesting)
Tenet = worse CIA director ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Washington Times? (Score:3, Interesting)
Final Comment from the Article (Score:5, Interesting)
The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.
The problem is... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the industry's fault for not pushing for tighter controls on the equipment that provides Internet access points.
I don't believe that people should be held accountable for knowing security inside and out. That's why they turn to the big guns of the industry to provide their hardware. "Hey, it says it's secure!"
Phil
I agree ... with one thing he said. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a whole lot of traffic out there that doesn't need to be routed through the main internet -- sure, you can make a little page for some upper level management to check the status of the nuclear reactor from the comfort of his home, but it's just not worth the risk if it means you remove the air gap between networks.
I don't agree with most of the other statements that he made, but companies who connect to the internet need to understand the responsibilities that come along with connecting, and their ISPs need to inform them of those duties, or provide it for them.
In the early days, you had people point you to news.announce.newusers [faqs.org] or later, rfc1855 Netiquette Guidelines [faqs.org] if you misbehaved. It's now the blind leading the blind.
Welcome to the united states of Bush (Score:3, Informative)
homosexuality, pornography, critical thinking, sex for pleasure, condoms, birth control, female pants (women should only wear dresses), good taste, gay marriages, healthcare, social security, terrorism, new age religion, all other non protestant religions and all democrats.
Joking aside, 4 more years of loosing civil rights. All those who vote for Bush thinking they trade freedom for security, job well done. </sarcasm>
Don't Touch The Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
It is strange, but I realize the Internet is my favorite part of modern human culture. I will use all means of dissent and resistance to keep it free. I have protested bad politics before, but that was nothing in comparison. I care about mainstream political issues, and war and trade.
But for the net, I will protest in the streets, in the office, in my community and online, with my vote, my word, my wallet, my prayers, my dreams and if I can in my teaching to my children and from the grave. I will not accept this.
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."
-- Frederick Douglass
The net is the canary in the coal mine. It signals the health of international free speech between peoples out from under the thumb of their rulers. If MY rulers try to mess with it in any way that oversteps norms of fair government, I will fight. We live in very dangerous *and* very promising times. Killing the freedom of the net is a great move towards the dangers and away from our chances for peaceful, understanding future.
This is where I will make my stand. I'm going to die anyways. I will live free or die fighting.
what's really behind this (Score:3, Insightful)
"Before you go freaking out with you tinfoil hats...now he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us"...
"don't get your undies in a twist over this - there's nothing untoward going on here"...
Wrong. It's called a "trial balloon": have the idea publicly proposed by someone from whom the Administration can easily disassociate itself, in case public reaction is overwhelmingly negative.
"with a waiver for those who agree to protect themselves"...
"His idea will not work...Users of email will not put up with it...Requires too much cooperation from everybody at once...Lack of centrally controlling authority...Jurisdictional problems...investment in protocols...illiterate politicians...Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem"...
Wrong. These are precisely the reasons which can be used to justify legislation requiring *centralized* measures, e.g. requiring service providers to install monitoring at all links entering the country or originating from internal users.
It would require no changes in protocols, etc.
"the USA cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about terrorism"...
The USA doesn't need agreement from others to impose this on links passing within the USA.
"the US seems to continuously invent new means of suppression and export them around the world...Regulation of the internet starts here, just like DVD encoding, DMCA, patriot act, etc. It becomes fashionable because the USA set the standard"...
Exactly. And, from imposing it only within the USA, it's not a big step to extend it to embargo links from countries which don't cooperate -- just as the USA now requires USA-bound ocean shipments to be vetted at the originating location.
Tenet said, "ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control".
This is what it's really about, i.e. a governance mentality.
This mentality is about, not just "terrorism", but also about IP, porn, leaks from whistle-blowers, etc.
A good insight into this can be gained by reviewing the USA's current campaign to imprison porn-makers on the grounds that porn is accessible even to a single offended constituency anywhere in the USA.
The US Constitution can NOT be used to protect against such monitoring, for two reasons:
1. Mere monitoring won't be ruled to be censorship, any more than the existing monitoring of telecommunications by the National Security Agency.
2. Likewise within the NSA model, monitoring won't be ruled to be "unreasonable search".
Keep in mind that censorship doesn't need to be explicit in order to be effective: the mere public knowledge of the monitoring can have a significant suppressive effect.
The worst thing about this is that "we" (the community of objecting users) have no way to escape to an alternative venue:
-- authorities will rule that any alternative venue also poses a security threat, since an alternatively-connected PC can simultaneously be connected to the existing net.
-- authorities *and* the public will regard the mere act of participation in any alternative venue, as evidence of nefarious intent, just like that subset of
There are few philosophical objections (or none) which will be able to withstand the power of propaganda which combines personal security fears with invocation of the sacred virtues of preservntion of "values", "protection" of children, and international commerce.
Why does George Tenet's opinion mean anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for your opinion, sir. We'll give it the attention it deserves.
Now where did I put that pesky trashcan?
Bug Money (Score:3, Insightful)
What it really means is that you won't be able to access the internet unless you use a Certified firewall appliance that is only sold by Microsoft for a modest fee.
While this may be based on the best of intentions, do not think for a second that the final objective will be to limit access to the internet to only those with enough funds to afford the licensing.
Rememeber, once upon a time Television and Radio broadcasting was FREE. Now it's extremely expensive because of licensing costs. What Tenet proposes will become a case for selling IP addresses to user on an Auction basis. And if you can't compete, you don't get the IP. Static IP's will cost MUCH MORE
Without some serious effort to block Big Business, this will be the end of the internet in terms of freedom of use, access, and expression.
Is what he says even possible? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see an easy way to deny access to the Internet to untrusted users, for the folowing reasons. First, as long as people can connect a modem to the POTS and find, or run, a DNS server
there is no way to totally prevent access from a clever user, even in the US. Second, even if there was a way to shut down US POTS access, the Internet is not an American property, it is global and governed by standards that are outside anyone jurisdiction. The design of the Internet is, in fact, to prevent the kind of control he envisions. Governments and Industry COULD design a new network with protocols that denied access without trust keys, but I don't see how they could kill off the one that they have. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?
That said, you could evolve a dual internet scenario, a commercial and closed net and a free and open net that would be increasingly (A) marginalized or (B)Used in the original, non-commercial way as a medium of communication, rather than advertising. But as long as you can run IP v.4 and get a phone call out you can't eliminate the old internet.
You could make it costly and painful for the rule followers to use, but I don't think that was the idea.
Maybe so, but not by the feds! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, why exactly is this anything anywhere NEAR the government's business? The Internet, whatever military origins it might have had, is now a mostly private network. Two people, with two computers, agree to connect wires between them and carry traffic. The government's role in this is solely to prevent crimes (i.e. fraud) and to settle contract disputes. They have no business at all restricting who can contract with whom to run wires between what and carry data, "just because it's the Internet."
Don't get me wrong: meatspace laws against fraud, unauthorized access (cracking), and the like still apply over the Internet, just as they would apply to transactions conducted in person. But this is equivalent to the government saying "Nobody can talk to Mr. Zhang or agree to carry messages for him, because he doesn't speak English well." The fact that it's over a wire makes no difference.
Re:Well, (Score:3, Funny)
Tenet's statements advocate a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to security. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X)
Re:The Form (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose you could ask him.