Slashdot Mirror
HomeSec In the News
The U.S. Homeland Security bill is steamrolling through Congress, on target to be passed within a couple of days. Since its passage is guaranteed, in whatever form it finally ends up, lawmakers are attempting to tack on their own pet projects to the bill so they can ride its coattails. A CNet article mentions that a version of the Cyberspace Security Enhancement Act has been appended to the HomeSec bill. William Safire blasts the addition in the New York Times. The Times has another story on the bill that notes some of the corporate pork that is also being added to the bill.
Just to put it into more context...
Lets say that a bill is going through Congress to put better controls on Ketchup manufacturing, because some people got e.coli from ketchup. This is going to sail right through; think of the children! So they start tacking on little bits that have nothing to do, really, with the problem at hand. "100 million to the FDA for improved Ketchup testing. And 500 Million to NASA. For, umm...space..ketchup...testing."
Now, the President has the ability to only say 'yes' or 'no' to the entire law, as presented to him. This is, I think, how it should be; y'all need to attack the root problem of fucked up laws going through Congress. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; America's political system would work far better if y'all used it as intended, and abolished the concept of the 'career politician.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
(Emphasis mine)
Apparently prior to 9/11 ISPs were prohibited from giving away that information without a warrant. Now they are allowed to, but apparently not compelled to. This is an important distinction. Would an ISP violate customer faith and give out this information in situations that really don't warrant it? I doubt it. I doubt they'd give away anything without a warrant, allowed or not, simply because it costs money to store that all that crap and then look it up.
67% of eligible voters didn't vote, why? Sure some people are lazy, but it's not an all day exercise to go out and pull a lever. I can't believe all 67% would say they didn't vote because they were lazy.
We just don't care because we all have "better" things to do(get more money and buy stupid shit) rather than sit around to think and discuss(Note: I said discuss not just yell your party's rethoric at each other) issues.
I remember reading about countries that take election day as a national holiday. Celebrations and such, they understand what a great right it is to vote.
Does this mean that Iraq is a better "democracy" than us?
The fact that the left is so factionized hurts it so much. The anti-war rally in DC a few weeks ago was just a mishmash of leftist groups trying to get across their individual messages instead of putting aside their petty agendas and showing a united front.
Great time to attempt to market your group's ideas right? I mean the best time to recruit is any given oppurtunity.
Eh, in the end we're doomed, I'm starting to think the world really will end in 2012, at least for Americans.
-- taking over the world, we are.
Lets see in the US gov't we have the following agencies to "protect" the citizens
CIA
NSA
FBI
ATF
DEA
And probably a few others. All of these agencies are empires in their own right and the interface between them is largely opaque and there is lots of redundancies and external friction.
Why do we need another empire!
BTW, Canada has one the RCMP.
I wonder... is email header information analogous to the address, return address, and postmark of a snail-mail letter? Is the post office currently allowed to track these w/o a warrant?
How much time would the gov waste if we all sent blank emails to Kabul?
How about a flat tax break? Everyone pays %2 less. Or, better yet, everyone pays $1000 less. If you're already paying nothing... you get nothing. Liberals would have shut up, I guarantee you.
Ask an economist... the capital is there already. We're just worried that the consumer doesn't have the money to buy. Right now we need trickle *up* economics. Capital gains/high end income tax breaks aren't going to make people invest when those investments can't make money anyway.
The socialized welfare garbage is stupid... it's just also inneffective. The best example was the Democrats arguing over unionization of the homeland security agency. Who cares?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
There ARE ALWAYS checks. The citizenry can recall elected officials. If we made a mistake by electing Republicans, then in two years we can correct it. However, I believe, the Republican philosophy is better suited for the world we live in.
Our economy will certainly (hopefully) get a jumpstart if nothing else
--Joey
I had submitted this message to my fraternity Egroup. It seems appropriate here.
k C: www.clsp.jhu.edu/ws2000/presen\a ry/jim_mayfield/homewood_ir_tutor ial.ppt+darpa+tides&hl=en&ie=U\
d c.upenn.edu/Projects/EARS/
a vios/1184 -1.html
n _langua ge.shtml
l . ht ml
.edu (learning institutions, .mil (US Military, they are funding
TIDES
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:1jQijQR-t9
tations/prelimin
TF-8
EARS
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/EARS.htm
http://www.l
SPINE
http://www.speechtechmag.com/issues/7_5/
QANDA, KL-WEB, and more info on TIDES
http://www.mitre.org/technology/mtp01/huma
Copy and paste what is needed.
Hmmm...
Now what could I do if I had a system to automatically transcribe
human-to-human speech over the phone??
Maybe I'd put it in a big fat fucking database, and use some of the
other contextual data-mining techniques to give me some useful
information.
Read for yourselves, and make up your own minds.
I purposedly didn't put forth some kind of fucked-up conspiracy
theory, but the sources do not lie.
The US government IS going to put all electronic info in a database -
that is NOT contested by anyone. It is a law that will soon be passed,
as mentioned in the earlier "Homeland Defense" email.
DARPA is spending a lot of money on text-to-speech.
With those two facts in mind (they are FACTS, not speculation), read
some of the web pages above. The language is fucking spooky.
Automatic transcription of phone calls, context-sensitive search of
text (from the transcripts, or the e-mails, or the web pages you look
at, etc...), and other bullshit.
ROAR
http://www.hltcentral.org/page-975.0.shtm
http://www.darpa.mil/ito/Solicitations/RFI_0103
This one is fucking scary, that is all I have to say.
Notice that most of my sources are either
the ones who develop the tech) or
the projects).
These are not tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
Again, read for yourself and decide.
I've overclocked my brain!!!
Don't buy the hype.
There is never only one party in power. Buchannan (of all people, but it made sense) was saying just last night on an interview that it's great for the minority party when they have a situation like this - the majority party takes the blame and responsiblity for everything, but it takes a 20 vote margin to pass a vote in the senate, a margin the republicans don't have. The Democrats still have plenty of power to block legislation, but most Americans just want to boil it down to a simple black or white condition, the same mistake they make when they blame or credit a white house administration for the economy.
Besides this, the NYT has a Democrat slant to it anyway, they're a "liberal" publication. I take most of their articles and editorials with a grain of salt.
A little manipulation of the facts can get you everywhere - Forrester lost to Lautenberg primarily because of the women vote, who was made to fear that Forrester wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade, when actually all Forrester said was that he didn't think taxpayer money should be used to pay for abortions. That doesn't illegalize them. If you want one, just pay for itself yourself, it was your mistake after all - it's not treatment of a disease which you have no control over.
I don't agree with the extreme religious right, but in general republicans are not the big bads the media plays them out to be.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Of course I'm going to blame the Republicans. They have made sure the Democrats can't check their power.
These are the scariest people in history to run this country. This bill was debated in secret. These clowns have it backwards. They're supposed to debate in public, and respect my privacy.
In 2 years, I plan to work on a democratic campaign.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
The big problem is the increasing scrutiny that we will all fall under. And the fact that we are moving towards a war under the vaguest of terms. Hate to do it, but I'm gonna have to drop a quote:
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power... Power is not a means; it is an end...not power over things, but over men...In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement...There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother... Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. " - George Orwell
> When did the word Liberal become an epithet
.
Newt Gingrich started the game back in 1994 when Bush Sr. lost the 1992 election. They put together a plan to make the world "Liberal" worse than "Communist" and basically wage the same war on the Democratic party that they waged on Communists before that. For more enlightenment, read David Brock's Blinded by the Right
It doesn't go both ways though. I have never met a Democrat or Liberal that responds to the other side with the same visceral reaction as a conservative when you say, "Liberal"
Conservatives have learned since 1992 that if you say something enough times people will take it as conventional wisdom. For example, despite the fact that the media in general has been giving G.W. Bush a free ride since Sept 11, 2001, they still claim there's a "Liberal bias" to the media.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I agree the thought of this scary as hell. However, can you imagine actually implementing this Data Warehouse?
In my experience as a consultant, Data Warehousing projects were extremely hard to pull off sucessfully. Imagine trying to create a manageable Data warehouse of this size? They'll probably spend more time chasing their tail than chasing terrorists.
The bill also tacks on loosely worded research funding for Texas A&M. It also lets the White House decide who gets hired and fired, bypassing employment standards regulations (who's gonna be suprised when it's 99% white?). The government can now slap wiretaps whereever they think appropriate, and ISPs can divulge information without fear of reprisal. The nice people who make the smallpox vaccine are now protected from litigation, as are the nice people who make metal detectors, and the nice security guards who man them. So when the big bad man carries his briefcase of smallpox through JFK International, you won't be able to sue anyone for reading Archie Digest when he was supposed to be watching the screen, and when it turns out your smallpox vaccine was in fact a dose of really, really dilluted cherry Kool-Aid, well, sucks to be you.
In other news that undoubtedly went unreported, your faithful representatives have bitten the bullet, and given themselves another pay raise. Now your Reps, Senators, VP, and about 1000 other people (literally) make over $154,000 a year, not including kickbacks, expense budgets, under-the-table exchanges, contributions to their re-election fund...
God Bless America.
(I'm legally required to say that, now that Bush signed a bill re-emphasizing the importance of "God" in the pledge of alleigence, as well as "In god we trust" as your national motto. So much for separation of church and state, eh?)
(And before your left-wingers start running your mouth off, I'll point out that the Democrats didn't oppose any of these bills, admitting that the soon-to-be Republican majority would make the effort useless. So much for standing up for what you believe in.)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
While reading thru the comments for this topic, I noticed a lot of people talking about liberal v. conservative, Democrat v. Republican, and the two ideologies that they are supposed to represent.
I thought I'd interject a little flash of reality. There is really only one major political party in this country: the Get Reelected Party (called the Republicrats by Libertarians). Most politicians out there will add any rider they think they can get away with, if it will help them get more campaign contributions or more votes. Both major parties take millions in corporate bribes (Fritz Hollings, the senator from Disney, is a Dem), both support pet projects for their home districts that they can use in their reelection campaigns.
There isn't that much difference between the two big parties. Dems say they want to increase social freedoms, but they'll vote for the patriot act if it's in their best interest. Reps say they favor smaller government and more personal responsibility, but every president since WWII has increased the budget, size, and power of the federal government.
Until the Congress is forced to only create laws that fall within its Constitutionally limited scope of power, this kind of corruption will continue. And the only people who can force them are the voters, but they'd rather vote for the guy who tells the most beautiful lie.
For more info.
OK,
We all knew that this was going to happen. Most of us, anyway, saw it several years ago. DMCA, Stamp Tax. SSSCA, Tea Tax. Homeland Security Act, Boston Massacre. Did any of you pass American History? America did not rebel because Britain suddenly unilaterally invaded the shores with thousands of troups; It rebelled because the British Parliament steadily eroded what the colonists perceived as their basic rights. Insert citizens for 'colonists' and congress for 'parliament' and you'll see we find ourselves in exactly the same predicament now.
On the one hand, you have a legal/democratic system that supposedly protects and represents your rights as a citizen. On the other hand, you have the reality of experience which says that congresspeople in D.C. don't really give a damn what you think. Frankly, your name isn't on that fat check they got for their reelection. Therefore, you don't count.
So, the question once and again is, what are you going to do about it, sitting in your dimly lit basement out in suburb USA? Let's look at the list of possible responses:
1. Do nothing. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off
2. Bitch on Slashdot. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
3. Write a letter to your Congressman. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
4. Vote. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
5. All of the above and join the EFF. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
6. Stand up and protest, take to the streets. Result: people in power pay lip-service to your cause. Mostly, this stuff still happens and pisses you off
7. Go on strike, refuse to return to work until stuff changes. Result: People in power pay lip-service to your cause, try to co-opt the outrage of your movement for their own gain. Pretty much this stuff still happens and pisses you off.
8. Form a political party and vote for candidates who support the way stuff outta be. Result: Opposition parties roll over and fawn over your agenda while working behind the scenes to undermine it.
9. Armed insurrection. Result: A whole lotta innocent people die. Old regime is sent to the wall to be shot. New regime ?
The way I see it, slashdotters and champions of liberty ought to be on level 5 looking to jump to levels 6&7. Bring Wall Street and every corporate LAN to a standstill with a sick-out and you'll start to see some action. Advancing to higher levels would be great, but anything less will get you a big fat nothing.
Now, as my high school history teacher liked to say: "chew and digest."
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Considering the amount of discussion taking place on /. about these issues, maybe people should also ask their representatives to read /. themselves. Maybe it could be set up that /. emails a link to all the senators and congressmen whenever a "Your Rights Online" or "United States" kind of story is archived. Seeing intelligent discussion about this might make them rethink things. Might. If nothing else, they'll know that some of their voters are against this sort of thing.
Sarcasm aside, you are on the right track. That is, the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, the question is, How broad is the impact?
I think all of us, deep down inside, have a gut feeling that 'punishment should fit the crime'. The problem is that it gets difficult sometimes to measure the impact of a crime.
Let's consider a drastic example: a sexual predator rapes and kills a 5 year old girl. Forensic evidence indicates that she died a very slow and painful death. This is obviously horrific but what is the "impact"? A girl is dead and her parents and a handful of others who knew and loved her will suffer severe emotional distress. Now consider someone involved in white collar non-violent crime, like the Enron debacle. Scores of people have lost their life savings. Scores! Now here's the question: which of these crimes has a more severe impact on society? I certainly wouldn't want to be the one crunching the numbers on that one.
And who is going to compute the impact? It's hardly a straightfoward calculation. So that leaves it open to broad interpretation. In other words, you can probably come up with any number you want. A hacker could be accused of providing sensitive information to terrorists. As for proof, the government would simply state they didn't know who the hacker gave the data too.
Another thing to consider is premeditation. A white collar crime is ALWAYS premeditated. A violent crime may not be. The legal system is set up to punish premeditated crimes much more harshly than 'heat of the moment' ones.
Trying to make the punishment fit the crime sounds great in theory but there are some significant problems with trying to implement it in practice.
And, for the record, I think life in prison for hackers is a bit steep, myself.
GMD
watch this
Liberals Encourage Selflessness, Conservatives Encourage Selfishness
No, the difference is that conservatives believe one has the freedom to either be selfless or selfish. Liberals believe that you should be FORCED to be selfless -- by their definition of selfless -- or else.
Personally, I generally believe more freedom is better than less freedom. No one stops you and those like you from being selfless, by whatever definition of selfless you want to use.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.