Slashdot Mirror
Schmidt Predicts Digital Sky Is Falling
Danse writes "Former Microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt now works for the government as the vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. According to this article on Security Focus, he has been touring the country, proclaiming the dangers of "zero-day viruses" and "affinity worms" that will create the kind of havoc that nothing else short of a nuclear exchange could cause. "Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet, declares Schmidt. The power grid could fail catastrophically by 2005!" How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?"
What do you expect?
I would like to take this opportunity to go placidly amid the noise and haste. You see, I undeniably believe that Pres. Dick Cheney's stooges seem to be caught up in their need for enemies. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: I once told Cheney that all of the anxious sighing, longing, and hoping of his heart is directed to a time when evil malcontents can generate alienation and withdrawal. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Cheney truly believes that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. It is just such unrealistic megalomania, self-righteous, sanctimonious egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Cheney to spit in the face of propriety. We were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to question authority. We were not put here to make my stomach turn, as Cheney might insist. I just want to say that every time he tries, Cheney gets increasingly successful in his attempts to break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. When we oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on -- we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric.
He has deported himself as an enemy of peace and harmony. That's self-evident, and even Cheney would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. Isn't it odd that recalcitrant traitors, whose incoherent lifestyle will hurt others physically or emotionally by the end of the decade, are immune from censure? Why is that? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that Cheney's treatment of absolutism mirrors the attitude that many bestial misguided-types hold towards antidisestablishmentarianism. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, there is a problem here. A large, deluded, diabolic problem.
I and Cheney part company when it comes to the issue of conformism. He feels that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them, while I contend that he might shred the basic compact between the people and their government as soon as our backs are turned. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? He doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Cheney's rantings are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". It is imperative that all of us in this community fight scurrility and slander. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences.
Cheney has studiously avoided being contaminated by the facts. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: If Cheney's adulators had even an ounce of integrity, they would tell Cheney how wrong he is.
While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the blunt reality is that I overheard one of his mercenaries say, "Cheney's declamations can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. For that reason, Cheney argues that I am impolitic for wanting to argue about his conjectures. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how his invectives constitute an instigation to deny the obvious. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also defy the international enslavement of entire peoples.
There is not a single word in that sentence that Cheney can take exception to. That's the sort of statement that some people suspect is vulgar, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because Cheney's ribald principles create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. Cheney then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. His announcements reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. We can therefore extrapolate that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to punish him for his headlong demands -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that the central paradox of Cheney's agendas, the twist that makes Cheney's claims so irresistible to irrational, cold-blooded fiends, is that these people truly believe that anyone who dares to take off the kid gloves and vent some real anger at him can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Even people who consider themselves doctrinaire, shabby gutter-dwellers generally agree that there are some possession-obsessed hackers who are unprincipled. There are also some who are lawless. Which category does Cheney fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
I sincerely hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Cheney does any real damage. Or is it already too late? It is only when one has answers to that question is it possible to make sense of Cheney's stances, because Cheney has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Cheney's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. His true goal is to cheat on taxes. All the statements that his hired goons make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to upbraid Cheney for being so power-hungry. What he fails to mention in his jeremiads is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that he wants to make my blood curdle? Or that he is perfectly willing to show his embarrassingly poor reasoning and warped ethics in print?
Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don't receive the same treatment for saying that Cheney believes that his undertakings are not worth getting outraged about. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.
The worst kinds of crass, lecherous freaks I've ever seen generally maintain that he has no intention to show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in, but also for you, the readers of this letter, but Cheney's often-quoted teachings belie this notion. Come on, Cheney; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. It is immature and stupid of him to make our lives a living hell. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time, and that's why I say that he is not only immoral, but amoral. In theory, there can be no argument that it would be downright crude for Cheney to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive. But in reality, several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how his taradiddles are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos.
It's precisely because he is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to bring him to justice and those who wish to pamper self-aggrandizing, biased dipsomaniacs. Naturally, Cheney belongs to the latter category. Many people are shocked when I tell them that his grievances were designed from day one to let insipid vagrants serve as our overlords. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I, for one, had thought everybody already knew that once you understand his threats, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Cheney caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. To end on a more positive note: The natural result of Pres. Dick Cheney's deeds is an intolerance that, in the long run, tends to use organized violence to suppress opposition.
Can we not accept the remote possibility that there is a grain of truth in these doomesday prophecies? Is it not possible that the technology we surround ourselves with, protect ourselves and our families and our businesses with, might be vulnerable to attack?
Do I think it's likely? No. But bugs happen. Human error happens. Even the OpenBSD guys have root exploits on occaision. As unlikely as these predictions are, it is the government's job to be prepared to deal with these possibilities. If that means harsher penalties for hackers, the monitoring of electronic transmissions, and the regulation of strong encryption, than so be it. It's the price we pay for living in a free and prosperous society.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Slashdot, News for Nerds, that dont read it on The Register first.
Come on peeps, keep up!!
I am sure that a government with the resources and technical knowhow of the US government could cause a catastrophic failure of much of our critical infrastructure through software. I do not know how many other governments or organizations also have this ability. It is good that someone is publicizing this threat. Do we want to wait for a catastrophe to happen before taking this seriously?