Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Wants Large Cyberpolicing Powers
LindaAthena writes "Thus were the words from a French report on a meeting of the
G8 nations and 150 representatives of companies from the
communications and information technology sectors.
A summit on cyber crime was held in Paris with the U.S. pushing
for total police power to bypass due process and other countries'
laws to catch cyber-criminals (as defined, of course, by the U.S.).
Note that public images of nudity in France are rated "G" while
U.S. protected "racial hatred speech" is a crime there.
The article from Le Monde can
be found in the original French or viewed in Babelfish. " A number of people have submitted this recently from the recent G8 meeting. The U.S. apparently pushed very hard for major cyberpolicing actions, while France was one of the few nations in the group that adopted a more intelligent long-term view.
--
Here's my mirror
Nah, the whole hoopla looks like it's designed to let incompetent sysadmins and suits keep their cushy jobs...
--
Here's my mirror
The subcommittee interviewed these witnessed:
- Keith Rhodes, GAO
- Harris Miller, Technology Association of America
- Sandra England, McAfee, A Network Associates Company
- Peter Tippett, ICSA.net
The level of outright lying regarding the security issues of Windows and Outlook, along with standard congressional grandstanding in front of cameras was just astonishing -- with only one representative taking Sandra England (and the rest of the witnesses) to task for misrepresenting that the love bug affected all computers -- and was not just a Windows/Outlook problem. At the end of that exchange Peter Tippet finally agreed that [paraphrase] 'OK, 97% of all computers were affected' and then pointed out that the very features that Microsoft just discontinued (embedded scripting in document data) was a critical necessity. The most frightening testimony came from Peter Tippet (who appeared the most technically savvy) who would not admit that the problem was client side security in Windows/Outlook and instead recommended draconian laws to resolve the issue. From memory:- Criminalizing the creation of all viruses or self replicating programs -- even for research purposes.
- Making "hacking" a federal crime with severe punishments
- criminalizing THE HIRING of "white hat hackers" so that anyone who has EVER been convicted of "hacking" will be permanently barred from employment in the computer industry.
- Of course they recommended against any corporation hiring "hacker" security firms and recommended that these organizations be criminalized.
In whole, the entire subcommittee hearing appeared entirely designed to further the cause of McAffee Associates and Microsoft, while recommending insane laws plainly unnecessary to further the cause of Internet security -- but they certainly do benefit the witnesses.I was most dismayed by Peter Tippet, who really did appear to understand the technical arguments and seemed to just be lying through his teeth to our congress critters.
SHAME ON YOU PETER TIPPET!
Which point are you trying to make here? "We" tried to stop Hitler. Too late. We lost. Don't forget that hundreds of thousands of French soldiers died during the blitzkrieg. A real slaughter. You make it sound like "we" (I put quotes bc I was'nt born and don't want to sound like I'm taking credit for it) did'nt try to as if we were to weak to do it. Well, don't forget that Hitler defeated both the French AND English army in 1940. Shit happens. Tough luck. At least "we" tried.
I am not racist. I think racism is a terrible thing. I am totally against racism.
But I am ALSO against egoism. My (current) views are not gospel. I would never purge an international archive to remove those things and only those things that I personally find offensive. I would especially not do this if it meant that everyone was going to. We'd have nothing left.
Trying to distinguish between "good examples like nudity" and "bad examples like racism" is exactly how we got in this mess. There are people who think nudity was a "bad example": "Viewing porn makes people rapists, ya know", they'll say.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Really, do we need this? I think not.
As protocol's mature and evolve, the security surrounding them is inheritly improved.
5 or 6 years ago someone could crash nearly every windows box on the Internet by sending it some trash data. As time goes on, these things get more and more secure. The internet and its community do this themselves. Call it evolution if you want, its a natural process and it has worked pretty well up until now.
Currently ISP's hold the power, they can cancel accounts and client ISP's and again, this self regulation has proven pretty effective.
Now the governments of the world want to come in with centralised power and take control of this democratic, trans-national entity that we call the internet in the name of 'protecting the people' (which is their claimed reason for everything.). I don't see how all this recent complicating of a democratic, uncorruptable, peer-to-peer system to one of disputably corruptable centralised power can benefit anyone other than those in power themselves.
If they want to stop 'cyberterrorists' they implement strong security ratings policies and baseline guidelines for security that companies must deal with when processing sensitive data online. They can contribute funding to security auditing and open security products and work with the community for its overall good.
The US government is on a powertrip with Echelon, the Clipper chip and all the crazy powers of the NSA and its not doing any good for their people or the rest of the world.
Then, it is no longer censorship. Censorship is something done by a third party to prevent information flow from A to B. But when B decides NOT so see some information, it is only choice, not censorship.
The problem is that the whole world is stuck with the shit those morons want.
--
Here's my mirror
The difference is that the US is neither in a position to march troops across the Earth or bind other states by trade dominance. . .our main assets are military strength and, well, wealth.
To paraphrase one of my favorite video game intros, "He who controls the Laws controls the Net -- and he who controlls the Net controlls the world!
Bah.
-Omar
Disclosure- I work for Cisco, but I don't speak for them.
It is certainly true that Cisco doesn't put out code without demonstrated demand, and multicast is a perfect example. I know. I asked Len Bosak to do multicast in 1990. Cisco likes making money. Big shock.
However, anyone who has been at the IETF for the last few years knows that Cisco has contributed a lot to both the standards and the state of the art. The reason that multicast is disabled by default is that there are two standards for multicast routing- DVMRP and PIM. To make matters more screwy there are two different types of PIM - sparse and dense. None of these play well with each other by default. Hence, The Principle of Least Astonishment dictates that we not enable anything until the standards settle down a bit. (If you're turning on anything, btw, go with PIM sparse).
Add to that areas where service providers are rightfully nervous. This relates to interdomain multicast (IDR), and the use of MBGP and MSDP. This stuff is still pretty fresh code. Not to mention that many ISPs don't know how to measure and plan for multicast services. The only thing that will help them is gradual deployments so they can get operational experience.
Regarding IPv6, we're all going there, slowly but surely. We need some customers to use it. Want it? Ask for it. We've actually had images you can play with for years. But the routing software isn't the only issue. There is a vast support infrastructure that is tied to IPv4 right now, such as HPOV, your preferred commercial databases, most free (or any other) code. To paraphrase the great William Shatner: Said in another way, the installed base of IPv4 is over 100 million people and has been for some time. Moving to a new version will take time and great care, things break all over the place.
Finally, on proprietary standards, all I ask is that you simply count the number of Cisco employees who attend IETF, and then look at the quality of the output of the groups they're in.
And this is the difference between Cisco and Microsoft, IMHO. Our APIs, if you will, are protocols such as IP, RIP, OSPF, BGP, IS-IS, SNMP, HTTP (to some extent), COPS, and RSVP, all protocols that were done in the open, in full view of the public, with public participation.
I can just see Janet Reno, hyped on Jolt, sitting in front of a 21" monitor for 37 hours straight. This will be another way that the corporate politics of the US will effect the internet. Anytime the US gets involved in a legal way in the internet, the corporate weasels find a way to screw over the average person.
You obviously haven't spent too much time with Cisco equipment. Cisco employs the same tactics that Microsoft does... if they can't beat a company, they buy the company. They charge an extrodinary premium (profit margins are in the 60% range last I checked) for their products.
It's my opinion that Cisco has purposely not enabled things like IP Multicast by default simply because it's not in their best interest to do so. They want people to use more bandwidth so they can sell bigger routers and switches. Frankly, if Cisco supported IPv6 by default on all their routers today, we'd be living in a much different world... but they won't, not until they are forced to.
Their support is spotty, they like making proprietary protocols which are completely duplicated by industry standards only to make integration with non-Cisco equipment a pain in the ass. Their online support is shotty. Their website is painfully slow.
The fact of the matter is, most successful entities, be it a corporation or a country, have gotten there by stepping on the little folks and forcing their will upon the public. This is the same for Microsoft, the US, Cisco, etc.
The US is however in a slightly different situation as the public has control over it, but is frankly too happy with our economy to do anything about it.
Another major problem comes from the fact that what people outside the US see and what people inside the US see is completely and utterly different. Britain for instance in my eyes has been extremely supportive of all of the US's military efforts in the last 10 years. They certainly aren't bending to our will because we have a lot of money.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
As long as $$ is exchanged over the internet, crime will be there, and we need a way to protect each other. However, ruling one land by another's law is not the proper path. Perhaps an international delegation would be better.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
It seems that when it comes down to it, when the US Government has to choose between the freedom of the public, and the economic growth of the country (particularly the megacorporations), they always come down on the side of the corporation.
Maybe it's because the corporations are the ones with the owner's certificates to the politicans with their large donations, and they know that the public in general isn't smart enough to realize what they heck they are doing and do anything but perpetuate the system? That when it comes down to it, loyalty has to lie with the people donating large amounts of money because that's the only way to stay in office?
And those of you bashing Clinton about this - first, can you show this is his policy? Second, do you think any other president in recent memory, or either of the republicrat party candidates would do anything different? We all know the shrub's "wonderful" views on freedom...
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Why do we feel the need to do this 'Play policeman and walk over any nation we don't like' crap. Makes me sick sometimes. Why were the LOVEBUG arrests made? Because the Filipinos had the FBI and Big Brother Janet insisting on it. They didn't give a flying [snip] about a college student who may or may not have written a virus. We do it to Mexico too. Just because they aren't willing to arrest and prosecute their drug offenders, we decided we're going to do it for them.
And why do we get away with it? We grease palms with easily skimmed 'Foreign Aid', sell the worst of them military weapons, and generally have a history of using the Navy SEALs to 'pick up' any world leaders we don't like. Manuel getting pissed the CIA isn't giving him his cut of the drug traffic? Let's snatch him up, play innocent, and let him hang in a US prison for crimes committed in Colombia and Panama. Nasty old dictator doesn't like having US troops on his island? Let's put some money into the rebels and let them go!!
What the hell happened to the concept of sovereignty? Gee, all these backward nations must not be able to police their 'cybercrime'. Let's walk right over them and prosecute their citizens with our laws. Oh, I forgot. They're not US citizens, so they don't get all of that nifty Constitutuinal stuff. Due process? False imprisonment? Search and seizure? Nope! Fuck them, France, Britain, Germany; They can't be trusted to prosecute their own criminals. Stupid backward Eurotrash!
Makes me sick..
.sig: Now legally binding!
Panic driven nonsense. ILOVEYOU is a pretty flimsy excuse to increase police powers, even by the contorted logic processes of the average politician.
.vbs suffix. The clever part of the virus was the psychological hacking that exploited a typical human's immense curiosity to see who was sending them a message saying ILOVEYOU. If we include self replicating organisms that exploit psychological weaknesses, then does that include memes. Should we imprison everyone from Vatican city to Madison avenue ? (I've heard worse ideas...)
What exactly is the definition of a virus anyway ? It is generally taken to be a self replicating piece of code. However, viruses often rely on a little help from naive humans. For instance ILOVEYOU required you to disable security settings on Outlook, then double click on an attatchment with a
Suppose we restrict our attention to computer viruses. Harmful code that corrupts data, replicates itself over the network (either fully automatically or with the assistance of duped humans). How about if we add the proviso that it performs action on the host's computer that are purely for the benefit of the author of the virus, rather than for the service of the user. How about a virus that exploits humanity's addiction to pointless ritual. A really sophisticated virus would be so effective it would try to eliminate competing pieces of software from being able to operate properly even on separate computers. Kudos to Bill Gates for creating the most successful computer virus of all time.
It's a question of responsiblity. There's this notion that if you get infected with a virus, you're the victim. The way I see it, if you're infected with a virus you are to blame. If your computer is performing illegal activities then I believe you are at least partially at fault. Certainly running stupid software (Outlook) makes this more likely, but ultimately it's your responsibility to run good software, and to use it sensibly.
You own a computer which is connected to a worldwide network. In the wrong hands your computer could cause untold damage. As computers become ever more tightly integrated into the fabric of civilisation, the damage that can be caused grows. If you own a gun and leave it loaded and lying in a playground, you can blame the kid for stealing it and shooting someone, but you're also at fault for not exercising due dilligence. A malicious virus gaining control of as many computers as ILOVEYOU managed could cause more damage than a postal worker. Suppose the virus contained voice software and dialed in hoax messages to emergency services, etc etc.
If the network is to have any chance of robustness, then everybody has to take responsiblity for their part of the network. It's worse than useless to say "virus writing is illegal, so if I catch a virus I'm a victim". Unless we have some relatively harmless mechanism to continually stress test the network, we leave ourselves open to catastrophic effect.
Owners of equipment are traditionally held responsible for any damage that equipment may cause. If you leave your handbreak off and your car rolls down the hill wrecking another car, then you pay. If it turns out that you purchased a car with faulty handbrakes, then maybe you can sue the manafacturer for damages. Although, it should be within the rights of the manafacturer to sell a car "as is", ie caveat emptor.
We don't need to worry about catching the "criminals" who write viruses. Just make it clear that catching a virus is irresponsible, and comes with it's own instant punishment.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
All people who are US Citizens should be *VERY* upset about such a thing. For one this breaks how we have been trying to conduct international affairs. We have been trying very hard to be diplomatic instead of war-torn. Wars happen because one people group pushes it's culture on another. The USA can't decide on a culture for 10 years at a time, much less the rest of the worlds. I strongly suggest that all US Citizens write the approperiate authorities and voice their opinions.
The internet has always been a medium of communication that is relatively unrestricted. France, England, India, China, Iraq, etc will *NOT* let this go through. Hell, in Canada it would be illegal to register godhatesfags.com!
We need to take a libetarian approach to the internet, leave it the hell alone.
Left, Right, what difference does it make. These labels exist strictly to divide people along party lines rather than by opinions on policy. In the old Soviet Union a radical Communist would have been called a "Right Winger" while a radical Capitalist would have been a Leftist; here it's reversed. Thus proving that these labels are meaningless.
What counts is not the label assigned but specific policies, which our media do their best to obfuscate at every turn. Given these opinions, what would you call me?
So, where the hell am I? Right winger because I support gun rights and the death penalty, or left winger because I support strong corporate regulation, strong government services for taxpayers, and limited military/intelligence budgetary support?
I think I'm just a radical. I have my own views and I'll vote by them... I'm voting Nader this year.
IMHO, there should be databases, similar to the Sendmail Blackhole, which list URLs that fall foul of the maintainer's constraints. You then pick the constraints YOU are comfortable with.
This would essentially "open source" the filtering process, allowing it to evolve into something that people want and use.
As for the US' dictatorial claims to rule the world, they've done that before. They banned sales within the United Kingdom of Cray computers to Universities, on the grounds that Pinko Commies can enroll on a course.
IMHO, it's less a product of Government Thinking, and more a product of the dysfunctional, extremely co-dependent idiots Americans decide to vote for. You've no-one to blame but yourselves.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't want to go too off-topic here but...
Sorry, I don't agree about the free speech issue. There are simply too many instances of free speech violations, especially with progressive or leftist ideals. Vocal, written, and electronic criticisms of corporate doings an quickly get you blacklisted, fired, and censored while typical rightist speech is unbelievably protected up until that person/organization kills someone.
Leftists are quickly labeled terrorists, communists, anti-business or whatever the new hot-button word is. Who do you think the feds have more files on, those insane ineffectual militias or those who openly question the economic policies of this country?
The Le Monde article comments that the US considers cybercriminality to be a case of natianal defense as well as protecting economic ineterests. Before they start organizing some gung-ho international cybergestapo to go after miscreants, they should start by actually building up their cyberDEFENSES. A good place to start would be by reading this article from the intelligence analysis website, Stratfor.com, which looks at the implications of most of the computerized world being "overwhelmingly dependent upon a single computer operating system that is exceedingly vulnerable to even simple attacks."
If a teenager with little talent can shut down major websites with DDoS attacks or corrupt computer files with a simple script, imagine what a foreign intelligence agency could do. As the article says, "the real threat from rogue states won't be nuclear attack, but cyber attack. Rogue states won't launch nuclear attack for fear of the counterattack. But how do we retaliate against a virus attack? We depend on computers. They don't."
It seems that a much more effecient way of protecting yourselves would be to prevent as much damage from happening as possible instead of just sending the troops after someone after the damage has already happened.
On the other hand, if by 'national defense', they mean making the world safe for the MPAA by going after Norwegian teenagers, then perhaps they have a point.
Ideology is for ideots.
Here are some long choice comments backing up my previous post:
Regarding ways to solve the virus problem Harris Miller astonishingly recommended:
IOW: One possible solution he recommends is to create a central authority which manages and could potentially censor ALL email on the Internet. WOW... that goes against EVERYTHING I've ever stood for as a System Administrator responsible for email traffic.
Here's another choice quote:
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN N. RIVERS (D-MI) asked this telling question to the panelists: So at least one Congresscritter "gets" it, but the responses she received in reply should dismay anyone with a technical background:
So Security problems with Windows/Outlook aren't inherent in to the design of those products, just a funtion of their popularity. Riggghhhhtttt....
Here Dr. Tippett defends the necessety of executable scripts which read the Outlook address book in order to find names of others with which to send email (typical Outlook security hole which he thinks necesssary -- at least until Microsoft changed their security tune I suppose):
And Finally, they recommend outlawing the hire of "hackers" who at one time have been convicted of malicious "hacking," thus permenantly revoking one's right to pursue employment instead of just fixing the problem client side: I'm just disgusted by this... if you've read down this far you ought to just go and read the whole thing. Be prepared to puke... this just makes me sick.
No one's got it right. Not one nation there has a truly intelligent view.
Look at the corporate-run United States. We have our free speech (much to the Radical Religious Right's chagrin) but no right to privacy.
Then check out Europe. Most of the nations there view privacy as a fundamental right, but can and do restrict free speech. Sure, it's against things like racism, but it's still wrong to censor anything, because the second one voice is silenced it sets a precedent by which all other voices are by definition jeopardized.
France is no more intelligent than the US in that regard. Sure, they have different views on nudity (whereas many Americans consider all nudity to be pr0n, it takes more than that to be consdered pornographic just about anywhere else). But they do ban other forms of speech. Yes, hate speech is a terrible thing. I have the distinct displeasure of living near a whole family of racists, so I know how bad it can get. But if no one has the right to censor me, then no one has the right to censor them either. And yes, it is annoying to have to put up with them (while I might not be the target of their race hate, I am still distrusted on religious grounds). But it's the only fair way.
The Declaration lists "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. Note that happiness is not a right, only the pursuit of it is. In other words, you certainly have the right to try to be happy. But if you fail, your rights haven't been violated just because you aren't happy. This is something we as Americans seem to forget often; I'm guilty of it sometimes too. But the fact is, even in a truly fair system we're all different people, so we all have to put up with crap from others at some point.
I'm sure I'll run up against the Radical Religious Right and the Terminally Insecure, I mean Politically Correct, for this. But if we're going to be fair, and the people do want fairness, then no censorship can be allowed at all. Privacy must be inviolable without a warrant issued by a court of law. Intellecctual property must be maintained, but so must fair use of that property.
And in the end, some things will result from this that people won't like. You might run across something that offends you, or -God forbid- you might have to do your job as a parent and keep your own eyes on your own kids. Law enforcement, restricted again by law to using only the means they're legally allowed to use anyway by the Constitution, probably won't be as good at catching The Bad Guy. Piracy will still take place. But it is worth it, because the alternative is worse: a Big Brother state with mandatory pay-per-use media across all channels, perpetual copyrights and patents, and no concept of fair use whatsoever.
A friend of mine once told me about her travels to Europe. She had the oppurtunity to talk and interact with a good number of Germans and other Europeans. The biggest difference that she couldn't get over? Europeans do not value their freedom like we do in the US. I'm not sure what to think about that, other than you seem not to value freedom like we do.
Your accusation that we should be punishing and locking up lowlifes who spew racist garbage, while the majority of Europe let Milosevicz go unchecked is humorous.
let's recap:
U.S: let people speak freely. take action against those who kill based on race.
Europe: punish those who speak poorly. little action against ruthless leader ethnic cleansing.
I am not saying that the US is the protector of moral fortitude around the world. That is far from true. I agree that we have problems. I just had to rant a little after your hypocrisy remark.
The G7 are the seven richest countries in the world: US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada + Russia makes 8
The Slashdot review of it is here. Garfinkel gives numerous good reasons why invasions of privacy are dangerous. He points out that data that was collected for innocent purposes by European nations was later misused by the Nazis. Information once collected tends to be kept. It will enventually fall into the wrong hands. Let me put this bluntly: The US wants the power to investigate people so that the data can later be used for extortion, fraud, theft, and violence. That is what this must eventually lead to.
Scholars would also tell you that French philosophers created racism, fascism and a lot of extremely stupid ideas. You can never win them all I suppose.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
It's not the U.S. alone--the EU can't escape from responsibility and ridicule.
The Washington Post has a story from the conference. They point out:
Hey, my computers don't want to be protected by Big Brother, they want protection from Big Brother.
Even French President Chirac, who wields a lot in the EU generally, has come out against UCITA. Given the EU reaction to Echelon, it's possible (though I'd guess not probable) that there will be EU laws banning software that contains deliberately-written backdoors.
According to this arcticle on Wired:
The session drew up talking points for the July summit in Okinawa of the G8 -- the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada, and Russia -- but did not propose a global "cyberpolice" or other new crime-fighting agencies.
It also states:
U.S. Assistant Attorney General James Robinson poured cold water on talk by French officials that Washington wanted to a global "cyberpolice" that could be a threat to civil liberties. He said U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno had never even suggested to him that she was interested in this idea and added: "That's certainly not been anything we have proposed here."
Curious... I checked other sources.
ZDNET has this to say: In his speech, Chevenement highlighted the trans-Atlantic gap by rejecting the idea of an international "cyberpolice" supported by U.S. officials eager to crack down quickly on computer crime. "Nothing could be more wrong," he declared. "Sovereign states can develop the capacity to act, first at home and then in international cooperation."
I don't think the CyberPolice issue is still on the table for the next summit in July. Of course, if everyone wants to get there panties in a wad about the U.S.'s meddlesome, high handed foriegn policies, please, don't let this stop you. Bash away.
Once The US and France reaches some form of agreement, time comes to China. If the US gets the ability to shut down non-US sites that break US law, China should be able to shut down US sites that breaks chinese law... And then we have Iraq etc...
All opinions are my own - until criticized
"The only reason the US is perceived as being so terribly racist is because the US is the *only* country on Earth that seems to actually care!"
To which you correctly replied:
Oh bull!
The United States is not the only country to care about racism, as anyone who has spent any time abroad in places like Germany or France can attest to. There may well be places (perhaps Japan?) where racism is not a concern, or is only a minor concern, but be that as it may, the United States doesn't even come close to having a monopoly on concern with respect to racism and bigotry.
But you then went completely off the mark when you went on to say:
It's political correctness, not caring. IMHO, if the US didn't make such a big deal out of racism and ethnic hatered, it would go away more quickly.
The vast majority of people in the United States do care about racism and bigotry, and do want it to go away. So-called political correctness is an expression and a symptom of that concern. It is often an inane, silly, and sometimes plain ugly expression, but that doesn't make the underlying concerns any less real.
As to the notion that, if we "didn't make such a big deal out of racism and thnic hatred, it would go away more quickly" history does not support your assertion.
Indeed, some 500 years of history on the North American continent alone, including all 224 years of the existence of the United States of America, clearly contradict your assertion.
Progress on diminishing racial and ethnic bigotry and hatred was virtually nil in the 19th century, with the one exception of the banning of slavery (which the US was one of the last countries on the planet to do, and was arguably just a catalyst and otherwise a small side-issue of the civil war, the main fight being about state vs. federal authority and the limits thereof). The issue of racial and ethnic equality before the law, and racial and ethnic bigotry as a whole, was largely ignored until the civil rights movement put the issue on the table in the 1960's. Since then progress has been much more rapid and, while there is still much room for improvement, no one could reasonably argue that "by ignoring the issue" progress in racial relations would have been any quicker.
Quite the contrary, as the last 35 years of change vs. the 465 years previous attest to. Indeed, the only way to achieve change and overcome culteral intertia is through activism and pro-active measures, of which the civil rights movement was an excellent example.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
....In the argument here and what you have is pretty much the normal day to day operations of any squalid, corrupt, war-torn emerging dictatorship. We hear as much coming out of Sierra Leone or Nigeria eg. "we need to restrict the disruptive elements in our society if there is to be any hope of calling democratic elections". Oh yeah, sure, and all that mayhem, repression and killing, pay no attention to it, ahem.
Once you have the police in control of the media and/or the phones you've fallen into the abyss. Plain and simple.
The US and the FBI don't like Interpol. They'll listen to some crackhead on the corner before Interpol (Remember the first DDoS debaucle? The Euros had the correct answer but the FBI was too busy being important to take their head out of their ass and listen.)
.sig: Now legally binding!
it works the other way too. if the US can invade a country because it doesn't like its policies (legitimate or not) then those countries are also entitled to attack the US. Especially on the grounds of human rights. The US is one of the few countries that have not signed the declaration of human rights...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
1) While it IS an MLM, it is NOT a Ponzi (aka pyramid) scheme.
2) Read the page about how you get kicked out if you are discovered or reported spamming.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Well, it may not be legal per se, but according to Guliani its at least OK, if you're a New York City cop with a broomstick or 40 bullets and a gun, and your victim is an unarmed black male.
The original post was itself hypocritical, as the same racism exists in Europe (cf people killed in fires in Germany when skinheads burned housing for asylum seekers, Europe's appallingly weak response to Milosevic in Bosnia, etc.). But ironically the post was right on the mark in pointing out the presence of very same hypocricy it (inadvertantly) epitomizes here in the US.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The Internet (and especially usenet), is imo the only form in wich the Anarchist phylosophie was setup and worked for a long time.
But we've come to the limits of anarchyst systems. When too many people live in such systems the auto-police work becomes harder and harder.
The net used to be self-policed, this is not the case anymore because ISPs do not educate their "customers" since they do not know the unwritten rules they don't abey the rules. They apply the rules they used to live in : which are liberalistic and capitalistic. Such rules in an anarchistic environment tend to kill such society.
The Internet until 1994 was the Achievment of Anarchism. We now have the proof that Anarchy can't be applied to mass people, but that on a closed environement it is a viable system.
none Yet.
This will probably be yet another attempt by the US to implement International law as a fait-accompli, forcing the rest of the world to agree using political and, always more important, economic pressure. Typically this has worked well for the States, with Europe typically divided amongst themselves on petty issues and Asia staying out of everything that looks to hurt the stock-market. But with the EU chomping at the bit to test the limits of its new political and economic union, it will be interesting to see how they stand against the US's age-old bully tactics. And when was the last time you heard of Japan taking a firm stand on any issue that wasn't clear-cut economics, as far as the International arena is concerned? I'm guessing the US is in for a surprise this time, facing the most unified European front they've ever seen. And is Japan's standpoint a harbringer of things to come? I think it would be wise for the EU to catch this changing wind quickly, grabbing support where it arises. Perhaps they could change their name to the EBU (Everybody But the US) and start sending open invitations to the rest of the globe...
"High school chemistry textbooks have the same information, maybe we should censor those too?"
This has already happened. Whether it was intended or coincidence I can't say for sure, but I have my suspicions. Probably, "But if we publish that we could be sued if some idiot ignores the warnings and..."
Find a textbook from the mid-1950s. Say, Modern Chemistry by Dulle, Brooks, & Metcalfe. Turn to the chapter on nitrates. Read. Read the warnings, too. Now go look at a recent chemistry text. Notice that something isn't there?
Warning: Off-topicness follows.
This could be from fear of litigation and such, or it could be from high schools, in the USA anyway, trying to teach chemistry by the theory, as in colleges, rather than 'descriptive chemistry' as in the 1950s. The 1950s text is a good text. Reading it one gets a 'feel' for the subject, the detailed theory can (and should) come later, to answer to nagging "but why does.." questions. I have a suspicion that the subject is considered difficult and boring today as it is first taught in a boring and difficult manner.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
"Maybe the UN should have police powers over the internet."
;)
;) .
:8)
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Maybe not
In practice, what's the difference between the UN and the US? The UN gets the flak, the US gets the credit and bosses everyone around.
OK, so China / USSR[1] have a bit of a say in the UN too... yippee.
To combine the best of both kinds of suggestion here, what I think we need is to form a totally independent Net - something where the governments keep their paws off, that regulates itself by technological means *only*. This suing-everybody mentality is blatantly immature and solves nothing. This legislating to remove freedoms thing is evil. The only times any legal body should be involved is when a net.action adversly affects the 'real world' (whatever that is
Excuse me while I invent utopia?
[1] or whatever they're called today
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
As opposed to the long-held Catholic belief of no birth control, and have as many kids as you can...
What I will say is that my colleagues and I have seen this coming for a long time. The big questions here are:
Give the Man the Finger.
www.alarmist.org
We're a bully on a big street. 270+ million Americans, 6+ billion world population.
Taking a look at the responses here and in those for the article on Canadian government databases gives me a really chilling picture of how many Americans see the rest of the world. Every time issues surrounding some foreign government's legal system comes up, someone always says something along the lines of "well, their a lot more socialist than we are" as if that explains anything.
/.'ers seem to take a wholly different view of the UK than they do of non-anglophone countries.
/. who has the faintest idea what kinds of language laws there are in Canada or France? In Canada, there are laws that require students to attend school in the majority language of their province unless they are willing to pay for a private education. In the US, the real situation isn't any different. Quebec has a law requiring outdoor signs to be have readable French content, as do several communities in the US for English. France and Canada require that some legally manditory documents be in French. The US does the same thing implicitly and explicitly, as do most countries.
/., it genuinely pisses me off to see a bunch of yahoos who've never lived abroad and who get their news from CNN tell me that country X is full of lazy bumpkins and country Y is in economic ruin when they don't know the first thing about those places. Try getting your views of the world from somewhere outside of bars for once.
I've lived in three countries in my life, the US, Canada and France, and if Americans think Canada or France are very socialist, it's only because their conception of what socialism is is piss poor. Japan, Australia, even Chile have social policies and government controls over the economy as great or greater than either France or Canada, yet few people here seem to see them as socialist.
A better folk political theory would be that the US is has the abnormal political system, with its worship of markets and disregard for good public policy.
Canada is not the home of big brother, nor are the French lazy. France has had higher productivity, greater increases in productivity and has traditionally been wealthier than Germany or the UK, yet I don't hear much grousing about lazy Germans and Brits on this board.
Furthermore, there is the noise about those countries not valuing free speech and/or privacy. True, both Canada and France have laws forbidding certain kinds of speech in some media, which are poorly enforced and whose legal status remains hopelessly unclear. That doesn't justify those laws, but it does make them largely meaningless. The US, on the other hand, is home to the Texas Food Libel law, making it illegal to say demeaning things about vegetables. It is a place where you can use legal pressure to close websites that translate copyrighted pages into "Swedish chef" jargon. In the US, free speech is reserved for those who can afford the legal fees (note that Babelfish does basically the same thing as the "Dialectizer" yet hasn't been hassled by BofA), while in both Canada and France such harassment is rare and often very costly to the harasser.
If you want to see a country with real free speech problems, look at the UK's libel laws. Look at the "LM vs ITN" lawsuit at http://www.informinc.co.uk/ITN-vs-LM/. Yet,
As for language laws, is there anyone on
As a non-American on
Wait a second, does this stem from the recent lawsuits and regular policing action that the US has been involved with (i.e. MPAA, RIAA, I LUV U virus, Montrealer caught for Yahoo/CNN DDoS)??
Personally, I would like to see an international team of computer/law experts put together for the express purpose of tracking down DDoS attacks, virii, and general mis-use of the Net... But let's be reasonable... if the US has laws and "agencies" set-up to do this, is that any reason to give them a green light?
And what about international laws for computer crime? Might not developing those first be a smarter idea before going head-first into a potential court mine-field with authorities from different counties?
Soudns to me as though this is being done completely ass-backwards. =(
Chris
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
The sad thing is most of you don't realize what a f*cked-up country you live in. And that so many of your lawmakers apparently do not understand that the Internet is an international venue, and one cannot easily frisk electrons at the border to determine whether or not they constitute vicious Nazi hate speech (perfectly acceptable) or a bare breast (probably illegal.) Sheesh ..
First we gain police control on the net, then we add mandatory telescreens to every wall! But if France doesn't allow hate speech, then how will we have our mandatory 2 minute hate everyday. I gotta stop reading 1984.
My next Slashdot post will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Some good may actually come of this. Normally, when the US government makes a riduculously unconstitutional power grab, it follows the DMCA and UCITA paradigm: it doesn't tell anyone. There is a difference, though, between are two least-favorite acts of legislation and this new cyber-policing nonsense. The former are manipulations of a corrupt system by businessmen who see no problem with using the force of law to make themselves wealthy (note: this is NOT capitalism!!!). The latter is a machination of the system *itself*. Even the most politically influential corporation is still really only after more money, when the political system itself comes crashing down on our rights its essentially because it wants to: a politician's real income isn't money, it's POWER.
/really/ saying is, "the US seeks to become as authoritarian as the USSR or China."
Anyway, back to the good news. What I see this proposal by the US gov't as is a confession. Here are representatives of what everyone still calls "the freest nation on earth", basically admitting that they don't give a rat's ass about freedom! When they said, "we want cyber-policing powers," what they were
Some days, the United States takes a step towards socialism; others, it steps towards fascism (as in this case of cyber-policing). But one thing's for sure, freedom is dead here. We might as well give the Statue of Liberty a whip instead of a torch and rename here the Statue of Authority.
MoNsTeR
(ps: Freud was an idiot)
For example, France won't extradite an US citizen if he risks death penalty, as there is no death penalty here.
A bit strange and fucked up: a rapist+murderer is sought by the french police, he ran for shelter in Portugal, which might *not* extradite him because he risks over 30 years in France, whereas 30 years is the maximum in Portugal. Had he risked less, he would have been extradited already ...
Actually I find the article rather uninteresting,
;) ).
but anyway here is a "human" translation
(sorry for the bad english)
G8 : States and corporations go for hunting 'cyberpirates'
--abstract--
Jean-Pierre Chevenement (France's interior minister) rules out the
creation, as the American suggest, of a world computer police that
could have tracked suspects beyond borders. Governments want to
convince corporations to invest in their own security.
How can an international 'Penal Code' can be established to fight all
forms of intrusions on computer networks ? This is one of the main
objectives of the most industrialized countries, confronted to an
upsurge of 'cybercriminality', this new kind of delinquency, sometimes
even terrorism, that threatens the interests of consummers, but also
corporations and states. Website cracking, destructive messages
transmissions like in the ILOVEYOU case, broadcasting of pedophilia on
the Internet : the cybercriminality exists in various kinds, their
common point being their ability to ignore borders so they can escape
any control. 'Net heavens', comparable to 'Tax heavens', might
proliferate, especially in Asia.
Since Monday the 15th, security in cyberspace is the theme of a three
day meeting of the G8 (most industrialized countries) in
Paris. Diplomats, magistrates, policemens, as well as members of
organizationss in charge of protecting private life have been invited
to chat with representatives of 150 of the most important companies if
the IT and communication sector.
" Points of Contacts "
This cinference is part of the process that was started in the Lyon
summit in 1996, when the G8 countries have adopted "points of contact"
to share their informations over cybercrime. The Paris meeting should
pave the way for actions of head of states and governments who will
meet in Okinawa, Japan, in July.
For once, Europeans are less favorable to State intervention than
Americans. In their analysis of the new criminality related to
computer networks, the US favor a very repressive approach. The
Europeans don't want any 'cyberpolice' to have the right to violate
the private life a anyone in the name of the interests of the
states. "They tell that the Internet is a territory with no right,
that necessitates because of its own nature, a specific juridicial
regime or a cyberpolice that would go beyond the states frame and
their sovereignity. This is not true. The States keep the ability, and
the responsibility, to act on their own." declared JP Chevenement,
introducing the debates. The French stance is widely shared by
Europeans and Japanese.
The Americans were first favoring an all-repressive
system. Washington wanted
a system where the intelligence services of the whole
world could bypass judiciary institutions to track the criminals
faster. The US consider cybercriminality to be a national defense
priority issue. But their interest is mainly economics : they don't
want to slow the rise of electronic commerce, that is supposed to fuel
the american and world economic growth.
Confronted to European reluctance to engage in this crusade, the
Americans have moderated their stance ("put water in their wine"
"The American discourse has changed" says the French
delegation. Beyond the different initial positions, the G8 countries
now make a unanimous constatation that anonimity and
private life of everyone must be respected, but should not be a screen
behind which anything could be done.
"States Sovereignity"
Thus, the delegations try to harmonize the definition of 'cybercrime'
and to degine the procedures for an efficient cooperation within the
states' sovereignity. As an example, the notion of "incitation to
racial hatred" does not exist in the US. And nothing prevents US based
neonazi websites to broadcast their propaganda to Europe.
The G8 States have coordinated their opinions but they still need to
convince corporations to take their part of the responsibility. This
is the main goal of the G8 meeting in Paris, that gathers for the
first times the governments and the private sector. "The industrials
want anything and the contrary", says a member of the French
delegation. They want a maximum security for a minimum of cost. One of
the main difficulties met by the states is to convince ISPs to keep
during several months the date that they have, to allow the
preservation of elements of proof. Regulatory will on one side,
libertary aspirations of the "net economy" on the other : the conflict
that looms is far from being resolved.
G8: States and large companies leave to hunting the cyberpirates
Jean-Pierre Chevènement excluded creation, as suggested it the Americans, from a world data-processing font which could have continued the suspects beyond the national borders. The governments want to convince the companies to invest in their security
Updated Tuesday May 16 2000
Lucas Delattre
HOW TO ESTABLISH a " penal code " international for better fighting against all the forms of piracy on the data-processing networks? Such is one of the first objectives of the most industrialized countries, which are confronted with a rise to power of the " cybercriminality ", this new form of delinquency, or sometimes even of terrorism, which is caught with the interests users of them, but also of the companies and States. Attacks of sites, transmission of destroying messages such as ILOVEYOU, diffusion of contents with character pédophile on the Net: the forms of the cybercriminality are very varied and have as a common point their capacity to be unaware of the borders for better escaping any control. Comparable with the tax havens, of the " paradises of the Net " are likely to multiply, in particular in Asia.
For Monday May 15, the security in the cyberspace has been the subject of a three days meeting of the countries most industrialized (G8) in Paris. Diplomats, magistrates, police officers, as of the members of the institutions charged to take care of the protection of the private life were invited to dialogue with the representatives of the 150 companies among most significant of the sector of communication and information technologies.
" POINTS OF CONTACTS "
This conference falls under a process which began at the Summit of Lyon in 1996, date on which the countries of G8 in particular adopted " points of contact " to exchange their information on the cybercrime. The meeting of Paris should release from the tracks of action for the heads of State and government of the countries of G8 which must be found in node with Okinawa, in Japan, in July.
For once, Europeans show themselves more " liberal " that the Americans. In their analysis of the new criminality related to the data-processing networks, the United States is in favour of a very repressive approach. Europeans, them, do not intend to give to unspecified " a cyberpolice " the right to violate the private life of each one in the name of defense of the interests of the States " Internet would be a space without right or the cyberspace, from its nature even, would require a specific legal status or a cyberpolice which would exceed the framework of the States and their sovereign competences. Nothing is inaccurate any more. The States preserve the responsibility, and the capacity to act ", declared the Minister of Interior Department French Jean-Pierre Chevènement, which introduced the debates. The French position is largely shared by Europeans and the Japanese.
The Americans, at the beginning, were in favour of a all-repressive system. It acted, with the eyes of Washington, to establish a system making it possible the services of information of the whole world to short-circuit the legal institutions to go up as fast as possible to the criminals. The United States considers that the cybercriminality is a stake of national defense of first command but their interest is also economic: they do not want to handicap the rise to power of the electronic trade, called to draw to the top the American and world growth.
In front of the European reserves to launch out in this crusade, the Americans put water in their wine " the American speech changed ", indicates one in the French delegation. Beyond the starting divergences, the countries of G8 make the unanimous report today that the respect of the anonymity and the private life of each one must be respected, but that it should not be a folding screen to do anything.
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES
One thus seeks to harmonize the definition of the cybercrime and to define procedures of effective co-operation within the framework of the sovereignty of the States. Example: the concept of " incentive to racial hatred " does not exist in the United States. However nothing prevents the sites néo-Nazis based on the other side of the Atlantic to diffuse their propaganda in Europe via the Net...
The States of G8 granted their violins but it remains to them to convince the companies to take their share of responsibility. Such is the principal object of the meeting of G8 in Paris, which gathers for the first time the States and the private sector " the industrialists want all and their opposite ", known as a member of the French delegation. In other words the companies want at the same time a maximum of security and a minimum of overcosts. One of the principal difficulties encountered by the States is to convince the Internet operators to preserve during several months the data they have, to allow the safeguarding of the elements of proof. Will of regulation of the States on a side, libertarian aspirations of the " Net economy " of the other: the conflict which takes shape is far from being solved. *** TRANSLATION ENDS HERE ***
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
To refer to the other people in the country as 'they' to escape my own culpability in the matter is just plain wrong. Yes, Big bad o' technos keeps voting for 'the prick most likely to screw me', and what do you know!!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Well, logically there will be some form of order imposed on the internet eventually. Really its a matter of who will choose the laws to enforce, and how will it be enforced.
The Internet is a global system, and the closest thing to a global government is the UN, I guess, but the UN is quite busy doing what it does right now.
I suspect, due to the fact that the US seems to have the biggest problems with how the internet runs, and the fact that they are willing to spend money, that the US will be one of the major factors involved.
Now, what extent of things that will be 'policed' is another question altogether.
Maybe the UN should have police powers over the internet. So internet crimes thet become international matters fall under the jurisdiction of some UN task force. That way it no one country is infringing over another country's jurisdiction. I know the US uses their muscle to force things in the UN but it seems a little bit better to have to at least do this more subtly through the UN than doing it outright as simply the US.
What ever happened to the ages-old philosophy of the state of nature? I thought that nations were in a state of nature with each other (in that, there isn't anything that governs their behavior toward each other and that each nation is a sovereign power).. So, it seems that the US is infringing upon each nation's sovereignity.. Yes, it is true that there are things like the UN and the Geneva convention, but these are agreements/contracts among nations and do not infringe upon the sovereignity of these nations.
This needs to be nipped in the bud before it ever really gets started (the snowball effect)!
An international "cyber-police" organization seems like the most likely candidate to police the internet, however, is it really necessary to "police" the 'net? If a "hacker" broke in and commited some cyber-crime, it should be the responsibility of the victim to track down the hacker and inform the police in that country. I don't really know anything about internation law, but I think the victim could still file charges..
Of course, the above senario would require cyber-laws in each country. But that could be taken care of by an internation recommendational committee or the like.. Is Hobbes really wrong about the state of nature?
The only reason the US is perceived as being so terribly racist is because the US is the *only* country on Earth that seems to actually care!
Oh bull! It's political correctness, not caring. IMHO, if the US didn't make such a big deal out of racism and ethnic hatered, it would go away more quickly. By making a government mandate out of 'getting along', you're just making the opponents more verbal. The resolution to racism is in proper education, not Federal dogma.
Everybody, everywhere, is bigoted. The fact that you think the US is the only racist country is a reflection of your own bigotry.
Never said it was the only one. It's the only one that is on a Crusade against human nature.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
For those who are interested, here is the Congressional Statement on cyber crime at the FBI site, dated February 29, 2000. The Private Sector Cooperation and Law Enforcement sections, I thought, were particularly interesting. http://www.fbi.gov/pressrm/congress/congress00/vat is022900.htm
Unless France's view was "ban all censorship, period" it isn't all that much more intelligent.
The Internet is not like television. The Internet is an enormous, distributed library. If we conduct periodic purges of the library based on the whims of the moment ("nudity is bad, now it's good; racism is good, now it's bad; cold fusion is a myth, cold fusion works great, no wait--it's a myth after all") we'll end eventually losing all the contents.
Q: So what about things like Napster and FreeNet? "How are artists supposed to make money?"
A: However they want. But technical progress will not and can not stop because of some individual's (or individuals') need for economic support.
Q: What about porn? My children will be scarred if they see a breast.
A: So keep them away from porn sites. Only YOU know what your policy is, so only YOU can enforce it. In any case, it's not my job to raise your children.
Q: What about bomb-making information? Oklahoma City/Columbine, blah blah blah.
A: There are so many answers to this I don't even know where to start. How about: "The same bomb-creating information that blew up an empty school last week can destroy an invading force next week." Or maybe: "High school chemistry textbooks have the same information, maybe we should censor those too?"
The only solution that works for all problems is education. Education requires information. Therefore censorship makes solving problems harder.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
It's not surprising; after all, it is from France that the concept of human rights (as opposed to " property owner's rights ") comes from...
--
Here's my mirror