Slashdot Mirror
Freedom Flees in Terror
Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum has an editorial about the various and many restrictions on freedom that are following in the wake of the September 11 crashes.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
-Thomas JeffersonIf you're not on somebody's shit list, you're not doing anything worthwhile.....
There is a current mini-poll going on at CNN that asks "Would you trade in some of your personal freedom to be safer from terrorists?" From being in the area, watching 5,000 people die, and hearing constant new stories from friends and neighbors about their dead relatives, I can honestly say "I would gladly agree with giving up some of my freedom".
In fact, this is an issue that has gotten me angry before. These hotheads parade around in real life and online, waiving their "free speech" stickers, and they don't have an ounce or inkling of what really happened here. People have said to me, moronically, "I'd rather be dead than lose my free speech." I have to say, honestly, "What good is free speech if you're DEAD?"
The First Great Tragedy is the attack and destruction of the WTC and ~5000 souls.
The Second Great Tragedy will be the trial and execution of Bin Laden.
I seriously doubt it will be a fair trial(guilty or not). With it will die the American Promise. If he did do it he has crafted the most ingenious attack yet. Why waste your own resources when your enemy will gladly tear itself apart trying to prevent the 'Next Big Terror'.
I could, hopefully, be wrong.
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt
"We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security," said House Democratic Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo. "We're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had."...Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., repeated the warning: "When you're in this type of conflict, when you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently."
And yet only Barbara Lee voted out of concern for that. If congresspeople do truly see that their actions against the people's rights have huge consequences, and end up only extending the harms of the terrorist attacks, why do they vote otherwise? Because the public calls for extensive action. Because they want to look 'tough' on terrorism. Surely something should be done. But indiscriminate rights violations are not the way to respond to the attacks. It is a short-sighted knee jerk, with long-term consequences.
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
To understand the present assault on freedom, it is necessary to understand the background. There are people who want to make war, simply that, as a way of acting out their own inner conflict.
What is the most important lesson of the terrorism? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.
I have tried to pull together information about this in an article: What Should be the Response to Violence? . The article is now considerably improved.
Bush's education improvements were
Either then, or during the Gulf war, "Imagine" by John Lennon was banned.
Both decisions appeared to be a bit strange, but were just as legal as resticting people from swearing on radio.
Australia, of course, has no free speech amendment. The USA does, for now.
You know my biggest fear isn't any loss of freedom, in the end the Supreme Court has a habit of shooting that stuff down for the bullshit it is. My biggest fear is encased in the following scenerio:
Let's say for the sake of arguement, they find people in the US who helped conspire the attacks on Sept 11. Now lets assume it was based of a broadened search that Congress allows. Okay, the person(s) responsible get convicted and go to jail. Now they appeal that search warrent used to tap your email, and insist they should have gotten a wiretap for it. The Supreme Court agrees and thows out ALL evidence based of the improper search and gives them a new trial. Now with probabally all evidence gone, someone may have to be se free. That's what I fear. Congresss being shortsighted and seeking a quick solution and in the end get no justice cause the laws used to find the people were unconstitional.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Yes, I would. I've been though a lot and I'm not terrified that easily. The concepts of freedom and liberty are only safe luxuries to those who have always had them; if you lose them for even a short time you come to a more mature understanding. You say, if I were there I'd be willing to forego a few freedoms for greater safety. I say, if you'd lost a few freedoms in the past you'd never agree to such an idiotic deal.
"I would gladly agree with giving up some of my freedom".
I won't, not now, not ever, not under any circumstances. I'm willing to fight to retain the liberties my (and your) ancestors fought and died for -- the same liberties which our country's enemies do not have, don't understand, and would be delighted to see us lose. Keep your eye on the ball, not the dancing chicken on the third base line.
Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I'm no expert on the process, but I'm fairly certain that elected officials take an oath to preserve freedom, democracy, and the bill of rights. Following the attacks, supporters of what would amount to a policed-state, or a country under martial law (where the intelligence arm of the government would act as the military force), haven't even bothered to mask their intentions. They simply say things like, 'US citizens will need to lose certain freedoms in order for our agenda to be met'. This example is a little extreme; but it seems as much a contradiction as hitler sitting in the oval office, and running this democracy according to his interpretation of the constitution. The kinds of proposals being made in the house and the senate aren't just crossing a line, they're pissing all over the line. Particularly, legislation dealing with immigrants who've simply been suspected of illegal activity borders on fascism. I suspect that most politicians who support these measures, or have already voted to pass them, haven't even had the patience to actually read what they're writing into law. If they do know what they're doing, they should be removed from office.
well, I think that we are sliding down the path to becoming a police state. It's actually pretty popular right now.
:).
Don't beleive me? look at the latest gallup polls here.
What was particularily shocking was this:
Requiring Arabs, including those who are U.S. citizens, to carry a special ID.
49% supported this, and 49% opposed it. That is incredibly insane. Perhaps those 49% who supported it should be especially identified for being morons
April, 1942:
The civil liberties of thousands of Japanese American citizens were restricted during wartime. Later, this was called an atrocity.
To any senators or congressmen listening:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I'm sick of seeing this blown out of proportion over and over again. It's not an infringement of our civil liberties. It's just a radio network making recommendations to its stations on how not to offend the fuck out of their listeners the day after five thousand people were murdered. As far as I can tell that's just good business sense combined with a little sensitivity.
Other than that whole "give us your keys or we throw you in jail" thing, how's the UK when it comes to civil liberties? My wife was born there, and my understanding is that it'd be possible for me to become a naturalized citizen. That being said, what's the overall climate across the pond?
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
This is America. Our nation was creating holding "(many) truths to be self-evident." These notions are intended to transcend time, most importantly that every man be free (of religous persecution, to have viewpoints not necessarily in line with the current gov't trends, etc.) to be free enough to pursue what he desires (make money, run his own church, whatever). When we enact LAWS _restricting_ these freedoms, we are IMHO throwing 300+ years of fighting. My fellow Americans need to learn there are things more valuable to _Humankind_ than life. The freedom to choose. People in many other nations don't get _choice_. Choice comes with responsibilty and perhaps we've been irresponsible (for the past 50-100 years!) but we should really do something to change. We have a unique opportunity here, amidst this travesty... One of the things we must keep focused on, however, is that which allowed us to get this far. We must observe and protect the Constitution of the United States. Keep in mind, the President (and pretty much anyone else who serves the Fed Gov't) _swears_ to do so on Inauguration day.
just my 0.02
-Bob
What are we do do when the vast majority of the population desires a government that is in stark contrast to its Constitution?
I wish I knew the answer.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
This is a much better article on this topic, if you ask me. Shit, even if you don't ask me, it is still a better article on the topic.
Cyber-Surveillance in the Wake of 9/11
"It's important to note with respect to the coordinated terrorist attack that this was not an Internet crime per se. It could have taken place without coordination across the Internet."
One other thing, didn't Katz just cover this topic? Whatever.
How to Download YouTube Videos
A this particular moment, I am struck by the thought: Could we have trained him, used him, kept in contact with him, and built some form of relationship that wouldn't have led to this?
Probably not, but I'm still left to wonder if we could have kept a minimal level of understanding had we not lost all interest in him, his organizations, and for the most part his country, after the USSR pulled out.
Prohibit encryption - I'm sure a law against strong encryption would make terrorists/criminals think twice about using it. Perhaps if we had a law against hijacking and murder then the WTC event could have been avoided.
Oh wait, by definition, criminals don't care about the law.
Ban flag burning? WTF would that do? Sure, I've never burnt a flag, and probably never will, but this is nothing but someone pushing their agenda and using this tragedy as an excuse.
Libraries and monitered internet access - this is about the only one I can see being semi-useful. However, what is to say that the ID card I present to use a computer is real? And gee...SSL and a web based mail server and you have no idea what is being sent.
I really don't mind hightened security in airports and the searching of my carry-ons. I am paying for the convienence of flying instead of driving. I understand the saftey reasons involve and that by prventing someone from carrying a weapon on, a change could be made.
But implementing measures that ciminals will bypass anyway is another matter.
As for the boss removing flags on a desk - whose company is it??? When it's your company you can call the shots. Don't like it - work elsewhere.
The article was one one sided, and lacked any sort of journalistic integrity. Here's my letter to the editor:
Dear Editors,
I just got finished reading your piece on domain names that may have been warning signals of the terrorist attacks last week.
This article was horribly biased, and I hope a retraction and a more balanced and informative article will replace it.
The quotes in the article from Neil Livingstone have very limited view points that seem to waver close to extreme when it comes to attacking civil liberties.
Mr. Livingstone also seems a poor choice to quote on this matter, since his comments show that he doesn't understand how the domain registration system works on the internet.
Below, I've pointed out some passages from the article (specifically quotes from Mr. Livingstone) which show his lack of understanding on the technical details involved in registering domain names and his lack of respect for civil liberties and freedom.
It's not surprising at all. Hundreds of thousands of domain name records are created and changed every day. Most of the transactions are handled by computer, and human operators don't even look at the names being registered. I've been dealing with domain registration issues for many many domains, going as far back as 1994, and in that time, not once have I ever spoken to a human representative from the registration firms I've dealt with. This is involving hundreds, if not thousands, of domains that I've been responsible for over the past 7 years.
His sources? Mr. Livingstone couldn't have had sources on this matter. The records are quite public, as your story goes on to point out. Anyone with a net connection can find out when a domain was registered, and who the administrative, technical, and billing contacts are.
Privacy issues? ANYONE can get the information his "sources" gave him. It's not private to begin with. His attack on privacy doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article, and seems very out of place.
And, evidently, he thinks that we should just forget about those constitutional protections that already allow this, once the proper clearance has been given by the courts in the form of search warrents.
It seems as if he's suggesting that due to a national tragedy, we can trample the constitutional rights of our citizens in order to ensure "safety."
In the future, I hope you'll present more balanced and technically accurate articles, with a broader sampling of opinions and viewpoints evident in the people you quote.
Thank you,
Ben Stanfield
--
Ben Stanfield
Executive Editor, MacSlash
ben@macslash.com
All the folks moaning about loss of freedom have valid concerns, but they should be comforted by history.
War in the US has always led to a curtailment of freedoms, as it must.
We have our freedoms because we have won our wars. We have to make tradeoffs between freedoms and practicality.
With all of these (horrors) attacks on our freedoms, we are still far freer than we have been for most of our history, and more free than most of the rest of the world.
Yes, we have to be vigilant, but let's not be paranoid. Too many people on the net seem to be spoiled by never having been in a time of turmoil or genuine war. But we are at war now. There are people who have killed more of our citizens than in any attack in our history! And they hit civilians.
So keep an eye out, but knock of the absolutism and the whining. You aren't going to lose your rights unless the bad guys win. If they win, you will either convert to Islam, or die. And for females... well, bad news, eh?
The goal of radical islam is to convert the world to radical islam. Not normal islam, but a twisted, semi-marxist, extremist form of islam. And that is the enemy, and they are willing to die for their cause.
So why aren't you willing to let the government do its job. I think DMCA is more of a real threat than these security rulings.
The only good weather is bad weather.
What constantly stuns me about the American public is how much it seems that few remember their lessons from civics class on why and how the US was formed.
The founders of the US framed the constitution based around the fact that the natural tendency of government is to oppress its people and for this reason there are a number of safeguards in the US constitution (Bill of Rights, Seperation of powers, etc) that are there for the express purpose of preventing the government from oppressing the people. The current trend of assuming that the government knows best and won't abuse its powers runs counter to spirit that originally founded the United States and would have the framers of the constitution rolling in their graves.
Seems this is an appropriate place to toss out a couple of new attack-related sites.
First, Jane's Security has some ideas about who may be behind this attack... and it ain't bin Laden.
Second, Political Cartoons, a collection of attack-related cartoons. Some are worth a second look: you can draw opposing interpretations from them.
The Dalai Lama's letter to Bush. Worth reading twice: it's short, and important.
Bush's Language: why calling this a "crusade" is rather foolish.
Also, I'd like to apologize for a previous post in which I used the word "accident" in lieu of "attack." My mind was somewhere else, and I think it was trying to fool itself about the atrocity of the attack.
This can be a sick and cruel world, or a world of joy and life. I encourage you to encourage others to choose the latter. Let's stop the hatred within our own communities, as we try to stop the hatred between nations.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's violence? How do you think it should have been solved?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
2- The reason they were not told is that nobody knew at the time. That footage was made in 1991. Yes people, made in 1991 and shown on all major US news on september 11, 2001.
I'm gonna be shooting this down for *weeks*... and I'm a hard lefty! I should be spreading this... but it's not true.
The person who initially made the claim, Marcio A.V. Carvalho, retracted the claim last Sunday. He was initially told by one of his professors that she recalled very similar footage being run during the Gulf War. He jumped, reported it, then went back to ask if he could have the footage to put online. Turns out, she doesn't have it available, so he can't be sure what we saw was recycled footage.
Search Google Groups for "Marcio Carvalho DENIED"; that should find several posts containing his message, forwarded from a Marxist mailing list. I'm rather glad he related the rest of the story once it appeared he couldn't back up his claims; it's more than most people do.
That this story spread so quickly, I think, says something about the credibility of news media these days, in terms of past transgressions on journalistic integrity. I point thee to ProjectCensored.org's 2000 item about U.S. Army Psychological Operations crew interning at CNN. As well, the words "GM NBC truck test" make for an interesting Google search...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Vietnam. Please. Now you can go ahead and say "we weren't actually at WAR" but this would conflict with your earlier interpretation of this term, since you say "WE ARE AT WAR!" without us currently being at war.
They don't think so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Damn idealists.
There are many things the public should know (that the government would prefer us not to), that terrorists have absolutely no interest in. Does "Tuskeegee syphillis study" ring a bell? Less seriously, when the hell are we going to find out who shot JFK? :-)
You know, you can't have it both ways. Either the acts of Sept. 11th were "war", or they were "terrorism". If they were "war", then perhaps its right for the US to go to war, but what is the war against? War itself? It wouldn't be the first time the country's government has been so inconsistent. If they were "terrorism", then why are we going to "war"? As many others have noted, the people who caused the tragedy of Sept 11th have real issues with the policies of the US government. If what you want is to declare war on those who have such grievances, go ahead, but its a huge number of people. If instead you wish to pursue the perpetrators of these hideous and cruel acts, I'm with you, but thats not "war" - thats an international criminal investigation. Trying to redefine such an activity as "war" to satisfy the most venal of human emotions, revenge, is a cheap trick. It won't bring us closer to finding the perpetrators or to a just and peaceful world in which these sorts of activities, on one scale or another, no longer happen with depressing regularity around the globe.
Disclaimer, I do not live in the United States. I live in a third-world backwater country which has a severe domestic terrorism problem, at least in the southern provinces...
Military action and curtailment of civil liberties as "solutions" to the terrorism problem are all ultimately temporary fixes, designed to treat the symptoms, not the disease. If the United States and its allies in the First World don't attempt to go beyond short-sighted military retaliation, they're going to lose this war even more badly than they lost Vietnam. Military response is a good thing here in the interim, but it must be combined with a wholistic strategy which addresses one of the main roots of the problem:
GLOBAL POVERTY
This is the biggest single reason why terror groups exist. The rest of the world feels disenfranchised and oppressed by what it perceives to be a big bully ramming policies down their throats which are designed to enrich him at their expense. Those of us who live in the third world, know that this accusation is not without basis. I am not justifying their approach to terror; I am giving what I see is the fundamental reason why these groups turn to violence. They feel unempowered, unable to control their own destinies; September 11 was the greatest blow they struck in this mad attempt of theirs to take the power back.
Terrorism has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and has everything to do with power. Terror groups hide behind the mask of religious fundamentalism, but no major religion in the world countenances the acts of September 11.
Capture Osama bin Laden and they will have chopped one head off the Hydra. Two more will grow back in his place. The only way to defeat the hydra will be to attempt to change US foreign and financial policy to truly attempt to aid the nations of the developing world instead of screwing us over and enriching themselves over us. If the United States and the developed nations can truly be seen to be making a positive difference to the destinies of the developing world, then it will be much harder to motivate people to perpetrate acts of terror.
Attempting to restrict civil liberties within the developed world is another particularly short-sighted response to acts of terror. Such restrictions on civil liberties are probably going to increase not decrease, the incidence of terror, as it will also increase the ranks of the disenfranchised and oppressed within your country as well, and domestic terrorism will probably become all the more serious. But of course, this is exactly what the control freaks in your government want, as it will give them more excuses to further perpetrate their reign of terror.
A real long-term solution to the problem of terrorism will be to revise and rethink your foreign policy. If your foreign policy were not so baldly corporatist, so baldly and arrogantly benefiting the few at the expense of the many, international terrorism would begin to decrease. Naturally, military and police action would be a good thing, but it is ultimately a short-term solution only. That only sows fear, and ultimately all fear can be overcome, as the terrorists who crashed their planes into the WTC proved to us in the most graphic way possible.
The world is still big enough for all of us to live peacefully. But if some nations insist on grabbing the lion's share at the expense of those who have none, then there will be conflict, there will be violence, there will be monstrous acts of terror. They know they can't take on the United States head-on, Iraq proved that, so they will attempt to wage a world-wide guerrila war. World War III is here, but it looks like no other war in all of history. The only way to win it will be to change the rules.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Forced crypto backdoors -- is this to be the next "gun control"? After all, the only thing gun control has done for us in the US is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get a firearm. Criminals continue to acquire their weapons illegally.
Similarly, what will force the "bad guys" to throw away their non-trojaned cryptography in favor of this new back-doored stuff? This sort of legislation is only useful for spying on law-abiding citizens. Let's be real here. How does this sort of legislation make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to do what they do?
The unsig!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
There's a Spider Robinson story that starts with a guy who's about to comit suicide. A robber pulls a gun on the guy and says, "Your money or your life!" Well, our protagonist has no quams about losing his life, and damned if he's gonna let that bastard have his money......
Back in the '30s, the big threat wasn't Palistinians... It was Jews. Hitler instituted all sorts of restraints on human rights to combat that threat. Ask the people of Germany about how safe they were in the aftermath.
I think it was Malcom X who said that:
people who are willing to surrender their liberty in the name of some minimal safety get -- and deserve -- neither.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I think the absolutism is destructive, even though my personal views are somewhat absolute in favor of freedom. And there *is* precedent for serious danger allowing the abrogation of some rights. It's often proved to be a mistake, but not always. Think about what the secrecy of the Manhattan project meant. Also realize that security succeeded mainly because nearly everyone on the project (and the press) wanted it to, not because of the threat of legal penalties or efficient government surveillance.
One proposal might be to put time limits on everything that impacts the Bill of Rights. Every six months, or a year say, they are required to reargue and renew the legislation.
Another way these laws could be made more safe is to limit their application to terrorism specifically.
I suspect it will be better to argue for reasonable limitations to these laws so that we can undo them more easily, and fear them less, than to argue with a quite understandably scared congress and citizenry. It will only get worse when there is another attack. We need to fight a battle we can win.
One thing we have to do though, is argue strongly and vehemently against anything that is counterproductive. Like weakening our personal, banking, or e-commerce encryption. Like using racial profiling without any probable cause. Like stifling peaceful protest. It would be unpatriotic not to point out that such ill-considered proposals would amount to shooting ourselves in the foot.
People are scared, some of the terrorists, some of the government. In a democratic republic you work it out to something both can live with -- not call the other side evil and unamerican.
However, it is well known that security is like a chain. A single broken link exposes the secrets, and cryptography is just one (very strong) link. There are many other weak links available to the government when they need to snoop. Just ask that mafia guy who recently got a free FBI keyboard sniffer.
I foresee the TLAs (three letter agencies) getting heavily into activities that circumvent the crypto measures that criminals and non-criminals attempt to use. They'll employ tiny electronic bugs, chemical tracers, Tempest snooping (eventually packed into portable devices instead of vans), computer trojans and worms, real-time monitoring of all global financial transactions, traffic analysis of the entire Internet, cell phone GPS data, face recognition, DNA sampling, etc. But most effectively, they'll hire a lot more spies who use social engineering techniques to just trick people into telling them what they want to know, or who infiltrate the bad guys' organizations.
I'm sure the spooks already know this reality, and they know that no criminal would ever use new broken crypto when old or foreign working crypto is available. Crypto backdoors are just the reaction of some clueless politicians. Likewise, too many people believe that if they have strong crypto then they have privacy.
Privacy does contribute to freedom of speech, and even to freedom of assembly. Sometimes you need to speak and organize against those in power. Fact is, quite often those in power can and will act against you for doing so, if they know about it-- yes, even in the United States-- and they can be considerably more creative than simply throwing you in jail on charges of having uttered some magic words.
If you trust those in power to maintain a nice solid wall between eavesdroppings they can act on and eavesdroppings they can't, well, you're either more trusting, more foolish, or just more forgetful than some of us.
Geez, you'd think people would remember McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO, and the Nixon administration's "Enemies List".
No need to show you why since everybody already caught you in your lie.
Hey, aren't you glad you posted anonymously ? LOL !!!
- sigs are for wimps.
But when he touch US interests (plan to nationalize Panama canal), general Noriega becomes the great drug villain and the US invade Panama.
Years before Noriega "pinnaple face" became a general, the Panama Canal treaty was already signed thanks to the general (who many believe Noriega killed) "Omar Torrijos Herrera" and Jimmy Carter.
US turned against Noriega when he went nuts. He had doctor "Hugo Spadafora" brutally killed, which led to scandal , a whistle blower, huge peaceful opposition, a failed cup, Noriega's suspencion of Constitutional rights, etc, etc.
US invaded, hundreds of Panamenians died, no more useless Panamenian Army. End of story.
You're so off, it's hilarious.
- sigs are for wimps.
"Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's violence? How do you think it should have been solved?"
First, you would have to start early. Non-violent methods, like violent methods, take time to have effect.
Second, the most powerful non-violent methods would use the fact that people are more knowledgeable about their inner reality than they were in Hitler's time. So, what I am about to say won't sound realistic for back then, because it presumes the knowledge that many people have today. Let's just talk about solving the problems we have today, rather than try to transport ourselves back to Hitler's time.
Third, achieve a complete understanding of what causes violence. Violence, including war, is caused ONLY by a particular kind of mental illness. There is NO other cause. If you understand that, and begin looking for that kind of mental illness, solving the problem of violence is not so difficult. It is still difficult, but not impossible.
When you understand that violence is cause by errors in brain processing, stopping violence becomes a troubleshooting problem. Stopping violence is a problem of troubleshooting errors in the human bio-computer. This is the kind of work many Slashdot readers know. Train Slashdot readers, and we have 1,000 or 10,000 technicians to put in the field.
Many Slashdot readers already know how hard it is to find a processing error. They have learned not to be intellectual wimps. If it takes 90 tries and two weeks to find an error in a C++ program, they know that's what must be done.
Fourth, there needs to be a recognition of how nutty things are today. I just watched an official on the September 19, 2001 CBS TV show "60 Minutes II" talk about the 1998 U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
According to the show, the U.S. sent 60 cruise missiles, each of which cost $2,000,000, into a dry mountainous region where the total value of all the surrounding buildings was probably less than the equivalent of $10,000.
According to the local Afghanis on the show, the missiles costing $120,000,000 destroyed part of a mosque and killed a few children and adults. This was an expression of a need of a few people to act out inner conflict. Why do I say that? Because $120,000,000 spent on doing good works in Afghanistan would, literally, put you in a position to be elected president of that very, very poor country. The people who sent the missiles did not want to solve the problem. They wanted to act out their inner conflict, and make more problems so they could do more trouble-making later, too. Do you see why I say the only explanation is mental illness?
The official being interviewed saw no evidence of anything crazy about this back then. He still didn't, even after being repeatedly questioned.
Read Limbs of no body: World's indifference to the Afghan tragedy A million people died of starvation! This article was referenced in an earlier Slashdot story.
On the local news tonight, newscasters said that a huge number of jet aircraft have been sent to the Middle East. Ships are on their way also. This when they have absolutely no more clue about where to aim their weapons than before.
There needs to be recognition of how often a well-educated, well-dressed person looks you in the eye, talks in an elegant, logical-sounding way, and speaks complete nonsense.
I have considerable experience teaching people how much craziness there is in the world, and how to recognize it. A good student can learn a lot in 9 months to two years.
Fifth, recognize that the conflict in the Middle East has NOTHING to do with religion. People have been using religion as a way of justifying violence since before Islam existed and before Judaism existed. It's nonsense. There is NO connection. Violence is ONLY caused by mental illness. It's that simple.
Sixth, learn enough to recognize that Arabs have a real gripe. The U.S. has been meddling in the region for years. Saudis, for example, have a right to complain about their government. How would you like it if you were an American working for changes in the U.S. government, but the Saudi government was preventing the changes? How would you like it if the Saudis who were preventing improvements knew nothing about the politics and didn't even speak English?
Conflicts are solved partly with personal understanding and personal relationships.
Step seven is where it starts getting messy. An outbreak of mental illness like a war is composed of many mini-outbreaks. Your technicians must identify each one. Each one requires personal attention.
If it is Hitler we're discussing, it is necessary to recognize early that there is a potential outbreak. Warn everyone. In the early days, the Nazi movement was weak.
The result of working with each mini-outbreak is that you drain the energy out of the mental illness, and people go back to just yelling at their kids.
This isn't complete, but it is enough for a Slashdot post. There's more in the article: What Should be the Response to Violence? .
Bush's education improvements were
I don't _need_ the source to Linux. Hell, I've never even looked at it, but it sure is nice to know I can
I have an NEC Versa Note laptop. It contains a built-in network adaptor which claims to be a Tulip based 21143 card. The driver which comes with Linux doesn't detect dumb old 10mbit hubs properly - certainly not my one at home anyway. Works fine with more recent switches though.
If I didn't have the source, I could have done nothing. As it is, I've discovered a state that only occurs when I'm on the home network and patched the driver so it works, for me, in the situations where I need it.
I couldn't have done that under Windows. So yes, despite being an ordainary user, I have benefitted from having access to the source code for my operating system (and a 3 year Uni degree in software engineering with C++ as one of the languages and an emphesis on learning C as well).
All this breast beating by us geeks about freedom of speech and back-doors in encryption software is very nice. I got to watch all the good stuff real time, fun, no? I have friends who I will never see again, family who are most likely crippled for life with massive head trauma, and kids who want an explanation. Why is daddy crying? I live not too far from the WTC and get (-- notice, not past tense) to smell it. By the way, not too far is the other end of Brooklyn. Look at the space shots of the plume of smoke. It looked like it was snowing here. I would like to make several points that can be responded to separately, as they don't really have a thematic thread.
1) These guys don't use email and electronic communications a lot, the important stuff happens face to face. Most of this stuff is irrelevant
2)news is breaking that our old friend Saddam Hussian may have funded a lot of this. We may be back in Bagdad.
3)We are human and the people we appoint to govern are human, The only two real ways to protect American freedom is a free press and each of us taking an active part in our goverment, not just bitching on slashdot about it.
This whole topic is moot. The US Constitution has now been suspended. In an egregious stretching of legal interpretation way beyond the breaking point, the US Government asserts it can detain legal immigrants indefinitely, without due process, Habeus Corpus, or a speedy trial. Nothing like this has happened since the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Here is the announcement:
r es ser/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.ashcroft.p
Constitutional rights are guaranteed to all RESIDENTS of the USA, not just citizens. Equal protection under the Constitution is now just a memory. Bush has trampled on our most sacred political documents.
"He who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of safety deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
Indeed, there's a long history of hidding messages in various forms. There's also a long history of catching it. As usual, I'll fall back on referencing David Kahn's "Code Breakers" for the particulars. Things such as hidding microfilm on a period in a letter, using the swing up vs. swing down in a cursive note have existed and have been caught by censors during various wars.
However, the main difference between that and systems like carnivore is that you used to have a human eyeballing these pages. Now it's impossible to get a staff that large (imaging trying to check every packet going over an MCI backbone).
Further, even if you wrote an expert system that could check the grammar and patterns of words in emails, it would most likely fail utterly, since the average person uses very individual (and odd) syntax in emails. Frequent misspellings, grammar missteps, and apreviations are everywhere. OTOH, conventional letters have a long history of established form where variation can be detected easily.
For that reason, such low bandwidth communicaion should be more that addiquate for the slow organization of terrorist cells. Virtually impossible to detect unless you're being targeted specifically (then you've lost anyway), and readily accessible. It's believed that important information is transfered face to face (ala the susspected meeting in Germany).
The funny part about the demands on civil liberties after 9-11 is that they haven't changed all that much since the days of CALEA. Then it was to save the children from kidnappers and child pornographers. Now it's to save the world from terrorists. I doubt either will be much affected by law enforcement's new toys.
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
It might be worth pointing out to the non-Americans reading just how freakily attached to the Stars and Stripes Americans are. (or maybe, worth pointing out to Americans how unusual their preoccupation with the flag is).
In the USA you can buy a national flag in every supermarket. I don't know where I'd go to buy a union jack flag (as opposed to a t-shirt, whatever) -- I'd probably have to find some sort of specialist ceremonial goods shop...
There was recently an interesting TV series called 'The Tourist Trap', wherein each episode a group of holidaymakers from a single country were exposed to a series of events designed to test their reactions. One morning, the holidaymakers awoke to find their national flag in ashen tatters, and their hotel deserted. The Brits reacted with nonplussed bemusement, a few giggles. The Japanese didn't really know what to think, teh Germans were stoic. The Americans threw an absolute fit; you'd have thought someone had killed their grannies...
I'm not criticising anyone, just pointing out some cultural differences...
Wasn't a law against flag burning the theme of the "Amendment to Be" song that replace Itchy and Scratchy in one episode of The Simpsons....?
Since we're all geeks here, let's try to move this debate onto technical topic. It's my judgment that the existence of steganography means that any ban on encryption will fail to thwart terrorists or any other criminals that law enforcement is attempting to monitor. And that's why I conclude that there should be no further restrictions on the use of encryption -- the bad guys will always be able to hide their messages, so a ban would only restrict people who have legitimate use of encryption.
If the government really wants to gain something by preventing the use of strong encryption with unescrowed keys, they'll have to go on to forbid the exchange of images, audio, and any other data with enough noise to hide messages. I don't see how this could ever be possible, not only in terms of civil liberties, but also as a matter of sheer practicality.
So the technical question is: Is it conceivable for law enforcement to detect hidden messages by analyzing Internet traffic? I know that stego is not necessarily easy -- if it's done poorly, patterns can indeed be detected in a file's noise, indicating that there's a hidden message in there. But my understanding of stego is that it can be done well enough to make message detection on a large scale completely impractical; enough to make a ban on encryption pointless.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Do you live in the US? Do you think your country should do nothing to protect its citizens? Don't get all hot and bothered about our foriegn policy, and causes of the attack and all that. It's irrelevant to this question.
Should we protect ourselves, or should we all just suck it up when someone blows the hell out of us? And I'm not talking about just the US. How should ANY country handle this?
Personally I don't give a frog's fat ass WHY this happened. Not today. Today I care about making sure it doesn't happen again. One thing at a time.
And the other address is completely unknown to whois.
Freedom does you no good when you're dead.
Thanks for the thanks.
Bush's education improvements were
would only physical flags be protected, or would it also be illegal to have a screensaver that has a animation of a burning flag (possibly superimposed upon the text of the First Amendment) ?
what about video coverage of a physically burning flag? would possession of that that be illegal? or maybe just watching a video like that would be illegal?
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Many of the political cartoons compare the events of 9/11 with Pearl Harbor and quote part of the famous "A date which will live in infamy" speech. This makes me wonder, have there been any speeches we will all remember this time?
Jeez, Ben, you're a journalist; you should know this. A quick scan of some other articles on that 'news' site reveals a strong anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, right-wing bias, with absolutely no back-up except porported 'interviews'. it's not a news site, it's a propangda mill.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
There is one thing that Congress seems to overlook. If someone is already going to commit suicide by flying an airplane into the World Trade Center, do you honestly think that they are going to give a fig about using encryption that would become illegal under some proposed bill? Strong crypto, with no backdoors, is already available for free download on the Internet. IF terrorists are already using it, what makes anyone think that passing some law in the United States banning the use of such crypto is going to make them stop? Such laws will do NOTHING to impede the use of such technologies by criminals or terrorist organizations, but will do everything to criminalize otherwise innocent persons, or will reduce the level of privacy enjoyed by law-abiding persons.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I've often
complained about how Linux has become harder and harder to use with the
extra security in every revision. It's no doubt going to get harder in
the future as computer scientists fear the software equivalents of
terrorism.
Originally it would automatically repair all filesystems on startup,
simultaneously. Now you have to log in with a password and manually
invoke the filesystem checker for every filesystem.
Originally passwords were stored in one passwd file. Now they're
stored in 3 password files. Originally telnet servers were enabled by
default. Today you need to generate 3 encryption key pairs, remove
several ssh cache files, and enable a sshd by hand before accessing the
system over a network.
Even tab completion now requires you to answer a prompt before getting
a directory listing. All these changes were due to bedroom hacked
network breaches of one type or another in the past. Imagine how tough
it's going to be in the next revision now that the country is on
terrorist alert.
The footage of Palestinians dancing in the street is not faked. See the Snopes commentary.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
... and it's a broken link.
a n/ fact/17may01.htm
The $43 million is in "humanitary aid" assistance;
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afgh
Fact Sheet: U.S. Increases Aid to Relieve Afghan Crisis
($43 million to include wheat, food, health care, shelter)
- sigs are for wimps.
Thanks for the personally disparaging remarks.
Anyway, the people who physically controlled the planes are not what I was talking about. If that's the only thing you can find "wrong" with my post, then you have issues. I don't even like my thoughts. (Doesn't mean I don't still have 'em...)
The pilots in these attacks were simply tools. They were physical manifestations of some person's or organization's political/religious/personal agenda. Someone obviously doesn't like the people or policies of the U.S., and they seem to believe that killing innocent civilians will somehow further their agenda. Those are the people I was talking about. I don't understand how you failed to see that.
Think of World War 2. Did we try and convict the soldiers on guard duty at concentration camps? No, the leaders were to blame. The foot soldiers were just duped into a homocidal ideology. Are we putting Serbian soldiers on trial for the ethnic cleansings and whatnot that went on a couple years ago? No, it's Milosevic (sp?) that is to blame. Do we sue gun manufacturers for intentional shooting deaths? The person pulling the trigger is responsible for their actions. The gun is simply a tool. The pilots were tools.
The pilots were not the issue here. The architects of the plans are. Those are the people we need to find and make pay for their atrocities.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
The text, actually, is the foreword to his book: Amusing ourselves to death.
Actually, if a gun owner needed money, most of them are likely to sell the gun, rather than risk criminal status.
But seriously, I think Australia is "safer" because of a host of other factors that have nothing to do with guns. My guess is that most Australians would only want guns for shooting kangaroos, and even then, most of them wouldn't consider that a worthwhile pasttime.
I mean, if guns were the only difference, your crime rates for things unrelated to guns would be comparable to US rates, and I bet they ain't.
The debate over gun control can't be isolated and turned into a flashpoint issue. It must be considered inside a framework, and I'd have to say I think the Australian framework is worlds different from the US framework.
I do not have a signature
> that's why laws could be *carefuly* worded to only allow actions to be taken upon eavesdropping if that eavesdropping clearly showed acts of terrorism in preparation.
Two assumptions, both wrong.
1.) You're assuming that everyone agrees on what "terrorism" means. We're discussing the same federal government that once defined unions as Communists and interred Japanese Americans during WWII because they were "dangerous".
2.) You're assuming that the governmental agents who would collect information serreptitiously would then use it only for legal action. Again, we're talking about the same government that handed over data about Martin Luther King's movements to white supremacist groups so they could harass him.
> there's gotta be some way to compromise.
There is. It's referred to in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Virg
Good ones are.
Blunderbusses and muskets aren't. Pipe Bombs aren't.
A real rifle, bullets, or any semi-automatic weapon takes considerable skill, and to do them in bulk they REQUIRE an industrial base of some kind.
Female Prison Rape in NY
You are making nonsense of what I said. I don't have time to defend it, but it really does work.
You said, "Thousands of Jews are being gassed every day. What's your non-violent solution?
This ignored my first statement. To completely prevent violence, it is necessary to start years before.
Bush's education improvements were
The interesting thing is, the recommended disposal of an American flag, IIRC, is burning. Granted, the circumstances are not the same, but, again IIRC, throwing the flag into the garbage is dishonorable, whereas burning is more reverent.
In any case, should a law against flag-burning be passed, I think that every American should gather and burn their flags, since such a law is such an affront to the ideals that the flag stands for.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
So how does this relate to Carnivore? As I understand it, from the reports that have been coming out, that the FBI has just been showing up with Carnivore boxes, and telling the ISPs to install them. No warrants for specific people, no wiretap orders, just install it. Also, as I understand it, the bill on its way to becoming law allows just that, no warrants, no subpoenas, no wiretap orders, just intall it, and let it sift through ALL traffic.
...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
From Amendment IV:
There is no probable cause here, supported by any Oath or affirmation, and no "particular description" of the place to be searched. As such, no warrant can be issued for this action, so Congress has decided to do away with warrants.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re: Torture
..."
..."
What's wrong with torture? I don't really think someone who'd kill thousands of people (or mastermind it) is worth worrying about. Why do they deserve kind treatment?
Re: "But if you think that is a good reason not to help a country in need."
No, I think we should help them, I just think we should end their culture and religion, both are obsolete and they'd be better off without them.
At the same time as we help them rebuild, and setup schools, etc, we'll undermine their culture. The religion will take care of itself, educated people give it up.
Re: Rebuilding the towers - "How are you supposed to fight
Simple. Keep blowing up the towers, as you kill more and more people. They'll run out of towers, planes, and people, before the terrorists will.
Re: "The only thing that is going to come
I agree. The US foreign policy has always been stupid, and the US leaders are always willing to carpet-bomb enemy civilians to placate the American public.
Personally, I have no problem with prohibitions against burning our country's most visible symbol, but I do respect your right to feel otherwise.
Thank you for saying that. I quoting a voice with a name I cannot place at the moment, "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to preserve your right to say it." I cannot but help thinking and believing that restricting someone's right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to some or many is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment, and the ideals it represents. IMO, the 1st provides protection for speech that IS offensive to someone, or many someones. As long as an expression of speech does not endanger the safety of others, the suppression of that speech is oppression. From my perspective, burning our flag is a very effective expression of protest, since it IS such a venerated symbol of what our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters have suffered for, fought for, and died for. Many people tend to forget that one of the things that our flag represents, and one of things that Americans have suffered, fought and died for, is Freedom of Speech, which includes unpopular speech, even unpopular speech that brings tears to our eyes and breaks our hearts. My suggestion that we burn our flags was not made lightly, nor was it a knee-jerk reaction. I deeply believe that our flag is a visible symbol of America and it's ideals. Oppression of one of our most highly prized rights, Freedom of Speech, by the government, in making laws about what is and is not permissable speech, is a desecration of America, its ideals and it's flag. Such a law is much more disrespectful than burning the flag in protest against a government action, it is tantamount to Congress dropping their metaphorical trousers, and dropping a load of shit on the flag.
I'm afraid the fervor with which some seem to want to defend such a "right" has an eery parallel to those who would wish to exercise it abroad.
I understand. The most visible are almost always tho ones who overreact, and do so in a most innapropriate way. Preserving our rights does not mean running out to attack those who may or may not agree or disagree with us, but rather letting our views be known. Trying to force someone to our viewpoint through violence is wrong, but allowing the government to "get its foot in the door" to regulating what we can and cannot say by whipping up public opinion at a time when we are emotionally very vulnerable is just as wrong. Who is this law aimed at? The images on TV of American flags be burned is angering to me, but I haven't seen and pictures of it happening here. Does passing a law restricting American's rights cause the people in Afghanistan who are burning American flags to stop?
Before you bring it up, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater is dangerous, and can cause, and I am certain has caused panic and injury.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I certainly have no objection to proper identification being required on a airline. What I object to is being required to be unarmed, and to be made as defenseless as possible. If those regulations came from each airline, as business and safety practices, it would be a matter of "business as usual" and simply not giving them my business would suffice. But, these regulations come from a Federally appointed (not elected) government body, in direct violation of Constitutional law, and as such should not be tolerated by Americans. What right are you giving up? The right to self-respect, self-defense and responsibilty to your own life, safety and dignity, and your duty to help others keep and protect their own.
I have no right to tell you that you must exercise your right to be at all times armed. I personally may feel that by not doing so, you, I (I am not allowed to carry a firearm at work, due to company policy. I do not agree with this policy, but I am permitted non-firearm measures so I do the best I can. It still rankles a bit, and I feel less safe than I would if I was able to take more precautions for my safety. I need the job, though, so I have make a trade-off.) and others have failed America, our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters by not doing so, but I do not wish to force my beliefs on another by trampling what they believe. All I can say is, I will not get on an airliner unarmed. If that means I don't get on a an airliner ever again, so be it. Air travel is not the only made of travel, as you state. With the current restrictions in place, it is an unacceptable risk to me to make use of it. I think and believe that many of these restrictions are unreasonable, unconstitutional and only serve to make air travel less safe, and I will let my opinion be known to my Senators and Representatives. If these restricitions are lifted, and people still choose to not be armed on an airline, that is a choice made by them, not for them. There are many mature, intelligent and responsible people in this country who will choose to be armed, and to do so safely and responsibly.
IMO these regulations on self-defense have no effect except to produce a more-vulnerable captive audience.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
"Cause it's cruel and pointless"
..."
If it makes someone whose relative was killed, feel better to watch the terrorist be eaten alive by ants, or whatever, why does it matter? Sure, it's cruel, but so is killing thousands. I just don't see it as a big deal. Who are you to say your culture of never hurting anyone is better than mine? Ours is the only culture on earth that wouldn't torture terrorists, why are they all wrong?
"End their culture? Fuck why don't you just gas them
Because it's the culture, not the people, that's the problem. As long as they hold onto that culture, they won't be able to fit into the western world which, right now, is the center of the world. Being that I think as people, they are valuable, I'd like to get rid of that which holds them back.
If their culture and religion survive, we'll have more of these attacks, and sooner or later, someone will use nukes out of frustration, killing millions of innocents.
(Not that christianity is good, I'd wipe it out too if I could.)
"But logicly, an increase in security would happen as well."
How do you propose to put 100,000 people in that small of an area and have any reasonable guarantee of security? A dump-truck filled with explosives could crash through any barrier and take the building out, a cruise-missile, a jet that made it past the fighters...
You'd have to have a 100% success rate to ensure those people weren't killed, the terrorists would only have to succeed once.
And then, if they do take it out, you'd just rebuild bigger, making it worth their bringing in a nuke and taking them out all over again.
Give it up, the era of big buildings is OVER. Think of this disaster as the titanic of large buildings, it's where the public realizes that it's insane to pack people into something that'll take two hours or more to fully evacuate. A simple fire on the 30th floor could have done this too, because they can't extinguish anything properly above the 20th or so. These buildings are an obsolete idea.
"And they always will if everybody just sits back and does nothing about it"
See my past posts, I'm doing anything but advocating war. If we do invade, we need to make them a protectorate, not a smoking pile of rubble.
This is a good measure, and a valid use of tax-dollars and ticket income, IMO. I would like there to be a random unpublished number of sky-marshals on flights as well. However, I disagree that an appropriately armed sky marshal is a better solution than an appropriately armed citizen. In line with proper ID, a citizen who wants to carry a weapon (not neccessarily a firearm!) on a plane must provide ID certifying that he is qualified to. Having to qualify, to an appropriate minimum, one's skill, judgement and resposibility for one's actions and their consequences is quite reasonable.
(Getting up on soapbox) I'd like to see regs along these lines:
A random number of Air Marshals posted on all commercial flights in US airspace. They should be armed with handguns for concealability. Said guns should be loaded mith frangible, rubber or otherwise low to non-penetrative ammunition.
Armed passengers are encouraged, and must meet minimum req's. They must have certification (an airborne CCW, as it were) for the carrying of weapons in an airplane situation. Training for the defensive use of a handgun, bladed or blunt instrument in an airplane situation would be req'd for carry.
Tickets and boarding passes should be marked for armed citizens in a non-obvious to the human eye manner. In the mag-stripe perhaps. Tickets can be scanned at the security points. Armed-class passengers will be ID'd only to those manning the checkpoint, and all scanning results should be visible only to them.
Just a few suggestions. Airborne carry permits would be as legal as CCWs are. I know that I would attend training for carrying of a handgun, and get certification. I would volunteer to teach the same, if I were qualified to do so. I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of people out there who would volunteer as well. Perhaps ticket prices could be marginally lower for certified and armed passengers?
How to do a weapons check and only have the ones checking see the results? That is definitely harder. The metal detectors in place now aren't particularly discreet. Perhaps every passenger could stand in a booth closed on 3 sides, face the back and open their coat? Metal detection and shape analysis scanning? If their ticket has the appropriate "armed" rating for detected weapons, they could be passed without calling attention to the fact that they're armed. Suspicious metals/shapes for passengers without an "armed" rating on their ticket could be handled as they do now, handheld scanners, questions, possible detainment. Of course, there would have to be a well-trained human overseeing the process.
It might be similar to the weapon scanner in "Total Recall."
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Once he had them scared, it was easy to convince them that violations of human rights were necessary to stop the threat posed by the jews. Once the machinery for the violations were in place they were ultimately turned against the more general population.
This is the reason for the quote:
People who are willng to trade their rights for a sense of security deserve, and get, neither.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.