Slashdot Mirror
Because Only Terrorists Use 802.11
skinnyd writes "Consultants working for the Department of Homeland Security have announced that the Feds view open WiFi as a means of abetting terrorists, and say that they will compel the open wireless operators will have to close off their nets. 'Homeland Security is putting people in place who will be in a position to say, "If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating."'
All they want to do is mandate minimum security levels for Wi-Fi network operators so as to prevent intrusions.
There's a difference between intentionally limiting rights and establishing minimum standards of conduct. I suppose you guys never heard of speed limits on highways.
So it's a crime to run an insecure network? What about an insecure computer that can be cracked and used to launch an attack, is that a crime too?
Hmm... wonder if that means running a non-up-to-the-latest-patch OS or application is a crime?
can bring down the network of this country very quickly once they are on the network. Tell me, what is to prevent anybody from just signing up the NETWORK with the AOL cds?
Give me a break, goddamn it. Shutting down WiFi security holes will prevent intruders from going on the NETWORK?
I can understand if this is to prevent government agencies or companies with knowledge of government secrets from having wide open WiFi, but for EVERYONE?
Land of the free, just a thought.
geek page at KY speaks
only terrorists use wireless Internet
No, the problem is only Campaign funders run cable networks, wireless is a competitor that is cheap to set up, impossible to control, and very useful. Like the old BBS's, or peer to peer.
The sad thing is that the terrorists are the only ones with any balls to stand up to the government. We are all sheep.
Wifi scares them because it's not something they can just turn off like any ISP.
If someone wants to get unfettered access to the internet, if they have some desire and some knowledge they will always be able to. Even if there was no 802.11 whatsoever, I'm sure anyone who is able to take 4 airplanes and crash 3 into major landmarks is also smart enough to physically tap into someones line and gain the access they would have gained through an 802.11 network.
All this will do is cause the end of 802.11 access for most consumers until better security is devised. Corporations should be able to hire people to secure their wireless networks. Geeks will be able to secure their home networks, but right now that is beyond the average consumer. If I tried to tell my father than he should use an SSH tunnel for better security, he would look at me befuddled.
Alright, I agree with the fact that wifi is insecure and it should be regulated, but please please is it really necessary to make everything a terrorist threat in order to convince the US masses nowadays. Why not just give reasonable arguments, facts, instead of saying "it's a terrorist threat, that's all you need to know". Instead of outlining the real dangers, like stolen or falsified information, they have to go on and make a statement that to any half-smart person seems a blatant attempt to get quick public support.
It's bullshitting like that which undermines the trust of intelligent people into the administration.
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
If it's my network and my bandwidth I have every right to do with it as I please. If I want to provide an open gateway to the Internet that is my right. The same right any ISP has to not charge for access.
Regulating things because you are afraid boogey men could possibly use them is a fools game. I could kill you with string cheese. That doesn't mean we should require a minimum standard of conduct on using string cheese.
In case you haven't noticed almost nobody actually follows speed limits on highways. It isn't safe following speed limits on highways. If you don't match the speed of traffic your endangering yourself and others. Laws that are largely ignored as the general public doesn't favor them are wasteful and leave loopholes for various assholes to take away more and more freedoms.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If your admin isn't interested in security, then you've got a bad admin. Government regulations and threats of helping terrorists won't change that.
As far as the security of America goes, there are much more potent problems to deal with before worrying about terrorist's annonymous internet access. Our ports. Our porous borders. Our politicians.
So to sum up: HomSec may have a very valid point, but how they've addressed it is pathetic. There are more important things for the new department to be taking care of. If HomSec latches on to every little "security" problem in America, they'll get nowhere fast. If they choose big problems and start with those, the deparment might even make itself worthwhile.
Insecure wireless networks shouldn't be a matter of National Security, they should be a matter of personal security.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
This is not even remotely done because of security issues.
It's pretty blatantly obvious to anyone involved the security area that security fixes that require "securing the rest of the Internet" just aren't going to work. A good example of this is the attempt to "secure the Internet against spam." The current approach -- trusting other servers on the Internet and trying to simply secure all legtimate mail servers from spammers does not work. Keep in mind that anti-spam measures have nearly universal support, a tremendous number of volunteers, high visibility, and is a well-understood problem. It's pretty well understood now that trying to secure the Internet by securing every possible point of entry is not in the least feasible. The closest anyone has come is USENET, which is a much less critical, more tightly controlled system with the Usenet Death Penalty for offending ISPs -- and even so, as USENET aficionados know, there's still a huge amount of spam.
If the OHS is scared that they won't be able to trace someone because they're coming in from a wireless port, they need to secure all the services that they're concerned about and require a digital identification of some sort. Trying to make the Internet watertight is not, no way, no how going to happen. You can't secure the US and lock the rest of the world out, and you can't secure the entire world. You can't even reasonably secure all the possible points of entry in a state.
This isn't about security. It isn't even about technology.
Ever since Bush signalled that he was willing to back just about anything that "fought terrorism", every stupid agenda out there has managed to include "fighting terrorism". People competing with 802.11b (*cough* telecom corps pushing 3G services, currently being pretty much ignored in favor of the faster, cheaper 802.11b) would love nothing better than to hand their favorite politician a few dollars to "crack down on terrorism" on 802.11b. In contrast, *their* networks are easily monitored, and as evidenced by cells in the past, telecom corps are more than happy to use key escrow and provide information to federal agents. It's a ploy to try to save all those dollars invested in 3G, the marvellous moneymaker where telecom corps can charge you by the kilobyte. It's not a security issue.
Friends, this is US politics at its best -- "campaign contributions" (bribery) at full throttle.
May we never see th
Lets be serious. There are plenty of free ppp places still out there. Someone can easily get on through those or through a million insecure government military or university access points that have dial up lines. In a lot of places now you could just go into college libraries and jack-in right from there. If they want to hide their identity they can easily connect somewhere where they could route through some moron's misconfigured masquerading proxy that accepts packets from anywhere and logs nothing. Wireless does make it a little easier but someone can get on and hide their identity with or without it.
There are plenty of computers that have very important tasks on the internet and low security. I don't think of terrorists as being technically proficient, but if a skilled "terrorist" hacker comes along we could be in quite a bit of trouble.
Next week, we will determine that free society is a clear violation of the Homeland Security Act, and anybody trying to exist in one will be detained for as long as is necessary to combat this scourge of free society.
"We know that (an attack) could bring down the network of this country very quickly. Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in,"
I see something along the lines of the gov't national id here... perhaps a gov't supplied logon for every internet user? (think Microsoft Passport) something that might be required to get onto the internet? If nothing else, a more aggressive monitoring of the internet by the gov't and lots more restrictions and shutdowns, maybe things like the 'great firewall of china'.
I hope that it doesn't come to this... but it's a scary and very possible thought...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
It is time to start to remove the greatest terrorists of all... our own goverment.
We now have McCarthism, was in search of a commie, now to be in search of terrorist.
McCarthy could not see that his zeal to find commies was using almost the same tactics as commies used to purge thier ranks. Just being named made you a traitor.
We have already passed the into serect trails. In pisonning without trail. An resently giving a serect to kill Americans.
We are now running close to pre-WWII Germany.
On Septmeber 11, the largest terriorst act was the ground of all airlines. This got into place the goverment directly violating your 4th, 5th and 8th admenments. This all by giving members of the Surpreme Court the right to vote twice.
So...we're looking at taking away the ability of 'terrorists' to use free connectivity via 802.11? Do folks have to turn over their ID and proof of residency to get a hotmail address? Do you have to give your ssn# to use the computer at the local library? What about CyberCafes and PCBaangs? I don't see how a wireless lan makes our nation that much more a target for terrorism. Things that one might think are a little more important on the list are: 1) Our borders that are SO resistant to illegal entry [ I have a sponge that stops water better than our borders keep out illegal foreign nationals ] 2) Our ports in which only a small fraction of containers are ever searched. Will it we keep up the status quo until a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) is smuggled in and used against us? 3) Our politicans that are more concerned with their positions of power than the saftey and well being of the citizens they are supposed to represent?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Better laws would mandate that servers be patched and such.
No No No, there is no need for laws; there is no need for regulation. There is no need for any of that; if you want a secure network, HIRE someone to do it or do it yourself. Everyone is always running off at the mouth with make this law, forge this law. Law, law, law for the most stupid bullshit. Our legal system is already filled with enough bullshit.
This may be a troll; this may be flaimbait; but please allow me be the first to say:
Fuck The Dept of Homeland Security
Fuck John Ashcroft
Fuck Tom Ridge
Fuck Poindexter
Fuck every single COWARD in this administration who is so afraid of his/her own shadow that they feel the need to break down every door on Earth to hunt down everyone who might be thinking about hurting them. Grow a Goddamn pair and get out of my home; you have no business here. Come back when you have balls and a brain and have a reasonable, legal, Constitutional suggestion for how to truly improve the security of this nation. Until then, just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because you're not helping. I swear to Christ you people deserve to be put on trial for high treason. You've systematically stripped every single American of his/her rights and freedoms one by one, while simultaneously innundated our primary defenses against terrorists with tons and tons of completely irrelevant information. When we asked for a response to Sept 11, we didn't mean just any response; we wanted a REAL response. What the hell are you people thinking??? Have you all completely lost it?? Has every single person in this administration lost any and all sight of what their job is? Mr President, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That is your job description, and you need only worry about that. Please, take a moment to sit down and read the thing some time? If you simply do what it tells you to do, you'll automatically be doing everything that you're supposed to do.
This administration has, in my view, taken a complete "ends justify the means" position, and has decided that the rights, liberties, and lives of the American people are irrelevant sidenotes next to their political agendas. I am, at this point, absolutely disgusted with my own government; and I find that completely fucking pathetic.
I love my country with all my heart, but Goddamn my government's a bitch right now.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
This just in, investigators have determined that old ladies should not carry credit cards. It has been determined that terrorists could mug such old ladies, and use their credit card to signup for an account on aol and send email. The office of homeland security is attempting to pass a bill making it illegal for old ladies to carry credit cards. Investigators have also found that old ladies should not carry cellphones, live anywhere with a phone, have a computer or even a mailbox. Terrorists could use all of these things for their evil purposes. All old ladies are advised to report to the closest prison to be locked away for the remainder of their lives. Little old men are reportedly under invesigation now. Currently the dept of homeland security is recommending that everyone live in a box and turn into paranoid schitzo's.
The office of homeland security has no affiliation with al-qaeda.
I knew this was coming, but hoped it wouldn't. Folks, its time to realize that what is going on has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We are witnessing the rapid deployment of a full-scale police state, the likes of which has never been possible in human history. All the signs and seals are there.
I wish all slashdot readers the best of luck. Freedom was great while it lasted. Enjoy it while you still can. May we all survive the coming tragedies and meet on the other side alive and free.
www.enthea.org
This helps terrorism, that makes you a terrorist, X and Y give terrorists the means to Z. Give me a break. There is no way for a free society to be completely secure. This is a fact of life. Putting every little thing into either a "your helping the terrorists" or "your helping America fight the terrorists" light really doesn't do justice to the situation and trivializes the horrible things the terrorists have done by putting them into the same category as having an insecure wireless network. Come on.
</rant>
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
More like wi-fi scares them because it's insecure by default and most big corps leave it on default settings without realising that it's the electronic equivelant of dropping your pants and bending over.
I actually asked a 3com sales guy about it a year ago and got "Well personally there is nothing on my network worth breaking into and I doubt there is anything on yours either"
These people need to take action and clean up before the govt gets more motivated to regulate them.
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable [...]
Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I agree with you up to the point where you brought in the tried and tired Big Brother rhetoric of the unhealthily paranoid.
"Homeland Security" does want to create a situation where everything is traceable, and they wouldn't be able to do it, if it wasn't for the fact that they could bully ISPs and telcos into compliance. The Internet protocols in place don't allow for normal traffic to be very traceable if you don't want it to. At the very worst, you find out what ISP somebody got access through, but the ISP refuses to say anything.
Now "Homeland Security" wants to bully all open WiFi ports into closing because of the hypothetical premise that a 'terrorist' could use the open APs to anonymously conduct terrorist business online. And that's true - but guess what, it's just as easy to splice a few wires in the right locations to get the same access, only wired. Or they could splice and then put on an AP and homebrew their comm links.
This is doing nothing except regulating a new useful technology before it even gets off the ground. I'm pissed - I want WiFi to become ubiquitous, but not with the hand of "Homeland Security" on its shoulder. What bullocks!
Note to feds: hands off my technology. If you want to touch it, you'd better be prepared to show me a search warrant.
Unfortunately, they don't even need a search warrant anymore, under these new bills. *sigh*
I think it's totally within your right to run your open network. Then when somebody uses your open network to cause havoc and destruction, you should be held liable as a facillitator of their crimes. Seems totally fair to me.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I'm not surprised. It's always been like that.
Before they had Terrorism they had Communism. Everything that didn't fit their agenda was part of a Communist plot.
Maybe you don't remember, but not too long ago, Communists would suck the blood out of your children if they were given the chance. (Funny how all those blood-suckers are now in NATO.)
Who can deny that the best thing that ever happened to this bump-in-the-road, lackluster, infantile, wannabe tricky-dick administration was Osama Bin Laden?*
*I in no way support the actions of either camp of fundamentalists. Bin Laden is as intellectually and spiritually meagre as our own pet idiot.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
My issue is this: we had a good thing. WiFi was really beginning to gain ground, was really going to be something great. Imagine; freely available Internet access for anyone with a laptop supporting the standard (which most do nowadays). It's everywhere, and it's working.
So what does Homeland Security do? Do they go after the holes (numbering hopefully less than WiFi access points) that hackers exploit in the first place? No. Do they go after Microsoft and (gasp!) Linux for security issues? No. What they choose to do instead is to attack something that in fact has little role in the scheme of things, choosing to ignore the real vulnerabilities.
Let me quote that again....
Right, right.... Good to know that since it doesn't matter where they get in, we're going to spend untold millions of dollars to infringe on personal rights so that we can stop them from getting into the places that don't matter. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the DOS attacks on the root Internet servers amount to approximately bupkiss?
What I do like, however, is Sky Dayton (Boingo CEO) saying that wireless security is possible; it just needs to be easier. Right on, Sky; I agree with you completely! Instead of attaching labels to something so that it can be instantly regulatable (I'm pretty sure that's a word), he's opting to make wireless security ma- and pa- friendly.
And isn't that what it's ultimately about?
Actually, I believe the point is that it is right now 2002, and in either 2 or 6 years someone other than Bush will be in office. He's on year 2 of a 4 year term. This ridiculous idea ranks right up there with outlawing cash because the terrorists might mug us and take our wallets. "Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in," huh? So let's outlaw AOL, anyone can stick an AOL cd in their computer and get internet access. Terrorists are the real-world equivalent of trolls, and every time we make a rediculous, reactionary lawto try to stop them, they just laugh that much harder.
Of course this is not the America you love, unless you're somehow connected with the government class.
Your only mistake, If I may, was to grow up as a patriot. Every man/woman should love ALSO his/her country.
But I admt it's hard to teach children to respect all other people, then after some years send them to thow bombs on the same people's heads. Patriotism, like religion, is nothing else than a way to control people.
And, here's what I really don't get:
Does that guy honestly believe that getting into one Wi-Fi network can allow someone to bring down the entire Internet? And if he does, hm, maybe he should look at the original ARPA spec, compare it to the current topography of the 'net, and break up a few megacorps, hm?
Let's not forget that the people making these boneheaded pronouncements are rich white men who remember when color TV came out and they got one for their kids. The internet is a really scary unknown thing. They know it's incredibly powerful... and not much else.
But if they do manage to ban AOL from sending out those disks, I'm going to have to buy them a cookie.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
is it just me, or when you read articles like this you remember how you read the book 1984 in the early 90's a chuckled about how it wasn't accurate. Then everyday since you have noticed how this country has moved closer and closer to being something out of that book?
Wuuhuu! Way to go again, the "Land of the Free"!
Are you happy in your police state? How long till the Great Firewall of USA?
So, because there's the POSSIBILITY that someone COULD, or IS using my open network to facilitate terrorism is enough to convict me now?
Guilt by association. I love it.
So, because there's the possibility that one of my guests at a neighborhood barbecue or block party COULD BE a terrorist, that I should be held liable because I was giving aid and comfort (gave him a burger off the grill and a Coke out of the cooler), right?
And just because I COULD go berserk with a cleaver and chop a few people down to hamburger, I shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects right?
And because I COULD go blind watching TV, I shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And because I COULD be run over by a car, walking down the street, I should never leave my house.
The earth COULD drop into the sun tomorrow! So why should I give a damn about doing anything productive today?
It's called "taking a point to the ludicrous extreme". And the original point is already fairly ludicrous.
I also call it "overbearing".
Only an idiot thinks they can make the world completely safe, which is what these jackboots are trying to do.
Life is a series of risks. Some of them educated, some not. If we take reasonable, non-invasive action, and educate people as to some of the ultimate extremes of what could happen, you've allowed them to make an educated decision about their risks.
Rather than simply removing people's rights, and acting in a manner which has no bearing on common sense. Because of a POSSIBILITY.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Wired's article implies that they're trying to protect us from attackers using a wireless access point to launch a significant attack on the Internet itself. "We know that (an attack) could bring down the network of this country very quickly. Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in," were the words of the Homeland Security representative.
That's true, but stupid. By exactly their "logic", a terrorist or criminal could launch the same attack whether they connect through an unsecured wireless network or any other way. So unless they have a comprehensive strategy for making sure that terrorists can't get internet access *at all* then this doesn't accomplish anything. So either the administration doesn't realize this, or they do but they're using it as a smoke screen for some real reason, or it's being misreported. Frankly, I'd give about equal odds to all three.
You can't be serious.. This is a troll right? There is no such thing as GIVING UP YOUR FREEDOM, it's not a sacrifice, it's not a convience, it's givng away of your freedom. Parents and grandparents during WWII did not give up their freedom they fought for it. Which is what we need to fucking do, fight for our freedoms. Man you're really brainwashed; thinking that things can be undone. Once you give up your freedoms you just don't fucking say ok I want them back now. That's not how it works MeatMan, when you give them up they are GONE and the only way to get them back would be to get a mass gathering of people to vote for it. However, there are laws in place that already do away with "your vote counts" so the only other way is bloodshed because what's left in essence is a country run by the few. Trust me, the war on terrorism is screwing and will screw alot of people over in the future and it can and probably will happen to you. Can't you people see that the only people being litigated against are people who have done nothing wrong?! This war on terrorism has caught how many terrorists?!
The government is saying, quite rightly, that if you provide a conduit to the net, then you must take responsibility for that conduit.
That's what governments do best - make sure there is accountability for whatever goes on (without regulating what goes on).
So first of all outlaw Microsoft software, it's the biggest securety threat, and it's even more widely used than wifi.
"One of the many ways terrorists and their cells/hierarchy communicate is through the net "
You don't know who terrorists are until after they commit the crime.
Those 9/11 terrorists had access to telephones, internet and everything else, none of them needed to use open Wifi.
If anything, Arabs driving around with a scanner looking for an open WiFi connection would have alerted the authorities to a problem!
Notice they specifically go after Open WiFi, but they could have gone after free ISPs or Internet PayPhones.
(In Europe there are Internet public payphones, so I assume the US has them too.)
Nobody (outside of China) has gone after Internet Cafe's, nobody has even mentioned public Internet Payphones, only WiFi.
So this must be a commercial agenda aimed at closing Open WiFi connections.
Gotta be that COMETA consortium pushing this drivel.
Why not the department of Domestic Security? The word is even in the preamble to the constitution - "... insure domestic tranquility..."
/. readers who are not students of history or may be too young to remember.) The first Gulf War? Not about 'freeing Kuwaitis', but about oil. Why are we going after Iraq? It has nothing to do with terrorism or security. (If the administration were really worried about who potentially has a nuclear weapon, we would be going after North Korea which has stated that it has a nuclear weapons program. And they're part of the spun-for-bloodlust-creating Axis Of Evil. Remember that one kiddies?)
I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy. The people who came up with "Homeland" did a lot of research. Probably even more research than is put into the search for a new business names. There were probably psychologists and sociologists and focus groups - sworn to secrecy of course. "Domestic" sounds sterile and abstract, although entirely accurate. "Homeland" is a middle-america, bread-basket term. "Keep the home fires burning", "gotta protect the 'home'". "Fatherland" would have pissed off the women - besides it's already been taken. Also remember that this was aimed at the average sixth grade level of the population.
Just like you said, we americans don't have a "homeland". That's a term for a place where the people have lived continuously for many, many centuries. I don't think the two centuries we have been here counts. And besides, this is the "homeland" of the indigenous peoples who were here for centuries before we arrived\invaded\committed genocide on the previous inhabitants. I don't feel comfortable calling them "indians" as that name came from a navigational\perception error and "native americans" is another term imposed by the conquering people. Why should people already here name themselves after Amerigo Vespucci, a spanish invader?
And before I get people observing that domestic security doesn't cover those americans who might reside in another country, homeland doesn't cover it either. There may be a better description to include that, but I'm sure that those who made the decision were not nearly as concerned about accuracy as they were about spin.
The phrase "Homeland Security" pisses me off. The way Dubya says 'nuk-u-lur' pisses me off. (Actually I'm embarrassed for my country every time I hear him say it incorrectly)And the references to a (permanent - see George Orwell's 1984) "War on Terrorism" piss me off. The attacks on 9/11 were not a declaration of war, only countries can do that. They were criminal acts perpetrated by and organized group. We have plenty of laws, both domestic (RICO, etc.) and international that cover that. But to call it a criminal act and hunt down the conspirators would not have furthered the administrations agenda of restricting the constitutional rights of americans and making the middle east safe for an american pipeline to bring oil from the Balkans to the Atlantic. Is there anyone still naive enough to think that this is not about oil and american imperialism? When will we stop letting our leaders do this to us? Actually there is a really good article here about why we buy it and do it to ourselves. It talks about the 'strict father' mode of communication (Obediance to authority - Conservative\Bush) vs. the 'nurturant parent' mode (Empathy and helping others -Progressive\Clinton, for example) and how they drive the american psyche. It's worth a read.
The actions in Korea and Viet Nam were not about human rights or freeing people, they were about industry and furthering a political agenda - wiping out 'communism'. The equivalent of an ideological pissing contest. (This info for the benefit of
Nope, Iraq is all about oil and Daddy's wounded pride. In addition to having the one of the worlds largest reserves of oil, it's the next place where we need to put a pipeline. And don't forget that Saddam put out a contract on George Bush the first. And that Bush the first took a lot of heat about not going on into Baghdad and Removing Saddam. He took the heat even though the greatest minds of the time said it was better for middle east and world stability to leave him there.
The U.S. action with the U.N. in Bosnia and Kosovo were primarily humanitarian actions. And under whose administration did they take place? Yup, Clinton. If there had been a republican administration in power at that time, we would not have helped. Bosnia and Kosovo have no oil or natural resources that american companies can make a profit from. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Republican administrations go to war for business and political interests, Democrats go to war for humanitarian interests. Personally, I know which one I prefer - if it has to happen at all.
I'm sorry if this has been a rant and off-topic (sort-of), but I just had to vent. Mod me down if you must, but engage me in discussion if you can. That is the very essence of our freedom.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
How many people here even know how their own representaives voted on Homeland Security? For the record, here is the official list of who in Congress voted for and against the creation of Homeland Security:
House Roll Call
Senate Roll Call
(Interesting note, Senator Hollywood voted against. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.)
Is your senator in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your senator expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. (Not their federal office, snail mail doesn't get through there any more due to extended antrax checks.) They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
Is your congressman in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your congressman expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
But what if they did vote the way you wanted them to? WRITE THEM A LETTER OF THANK YOU! Everyone likes positive feedback from the people who control their job. If your senator was one of the nine dissenters, thank them for standing up for what is right! Include with the snail mail letter a check (not cash) for $100 to their campaign fund. Polticians speak two languages; votes and money. Speak your mind in both, in enough numbers, and they WILL listen.
While you're at it, write a short OpEd for the local newspaper. Short, sweet, to the point. Maybe they'll publish it, maybe they won't, but they definitely won't if you don't send it.
This is a democracy. Your government SPEAKS FOR YOU! Your representatives represent YOU. Remind them of it. Daily. Make them scared shitless of losing their job if they cross you. Their first thought when they wake up should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" Their last thought before going to bed should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" As a voter, it is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that those who claim to represent you actually do.
250,000 Slashdot voters is 500 times the difference in Florida in 2000, for a Presidential election. Imagine the sheer power of that electorate in congressional elections, if only it would get up off its collective ass and do something.
The Patriot Act of 2001 labels many so-called computer crimes "terrorism." I openly state, I am a terrorist. I seek to instill terror in the hearts of my government of trampling on my freedoms, or of voting against my will. I seek to make my government live in fear of me and my power over them. I seek to give George W. Bush nightmares of crossing me.
I am a voter. Are you?
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
As a former honcho of CNN just pointed out two days ago in a PBS interview, CNN and the rest were formerly NEWS organizations. They are all now subsidiaries of ENTERTAINMENT conglomerates who, in his exact words, "don't give a damn about journalism." He resigned from one of CNN's top jobs when a memo was circulated from the head of AOL-TW that, whenever there was a mention of reasons why some people did not like the US, there must be an accompanying reminder of what happened to the US on 9/11. He was simply unable to brook that kind of intrusion into the news department.
Bullshit.
If someone steals my unlocked car and then decides to run over 50 people I'm responsible?
If I buy a hammer, and I leave it on my porch, and someone comes and takes it and kills my neighbors, I'm responsible??
Your logic is so faulty, hell I couldn't even strain spaghetti with it, the spaghetti would fall right through the holes.
If I was planning to use the Internet to do something really nasty (like email members of my terrorist cell or release some destructive worm), an unsecure wireless network would be the best way to do it.
Dial-up ISPs log caller phone numbers, and cybercafes, hotels, etc.. have security cameras and people who might remember my face. With wireless access, I could connect from a parked car without anyone noticing or any record of my presence being kept.
Am I the only non-American who is sick of all these American patriotic rants?
I was proud to be an American when they became one of the last Westernized nations to outlaw slavery.
I was proud to be an American when they became one of the last Westernized nations to end state-sanctioned segregation.
I was proud to be an American when they became the last Westernized nation to enter WW2 and protect the world from Hitler.
I was proud to be an American when they gave equal rights to homosexuals... Oh wait, they haven't done that yet.
But when they started reading my e-mails and tapping my phone calls, everything changed. This country ceased to be about freedom.
America: protecting your freedom to bear arms since 1776, protecting you freedom to do everything else since 1985.
First of all, the single target of 'liberals' is pretty darn close minded of you. Second, the government really is doing a bunch of horrible things (detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?). Third, what do you think "we're going to start regulating" means? If you don't do it their way you will be told to change it or they will shut you down.. that's how regulations work ya know.
/that's/ the reason behind the use of 'terrorist' and other such buzzwords. Who on earth would want to disagree with a bill that would get past if it labels them as someone who's pro-terrorist?
The government is doing it's damndest to whip people into a patriotic fever so that they willingly give up their rights and not appear to be 'taking' them -
Patriot Act allows the government to detain people without legal counsel, without being accused of an actual crime, and many other things that go completely opposite of everything this country has tried to be so far to date. And lets not forget the Citizen Corps, where the government sets up tip hotlines for people to call in their neighbors for suspected dangerous activities.
You're right: 'homeland security' in the sense of the ability to protect our nation from threats (internal or external) is important, but at what point does it stop being a free state and start being some quasi fascist state? Mail is mail is mail. It's against the law for them to open a piece of snail-mail sent to someone unless they have good cause to do it (and good cause is not 'hey this guy has a middle eastern last name - lets check up on him'), so why the fuck should email be any different?
Honestly the answer to that one is simple: because they can and no one will know it. Sniffing packets and logging traffic is a lot easier than searching through mail without making it look tampered - that doesn't make it any less a piece of mail that is personal and NOT something they should stick their nose in without some damn good reason.
Anyway, there's my counter rant and not really meant to be a flame aside from the first paragraph.
Don't think it's just America that's gone to pot.
:-)
This is happening everywhere where there are politicians, because the Internet and all computing and advances in communications are undermining the power that governments once had in being able to monitor and control their subjugate populations. The idiocy which you see is a response to their belated realization of the new freedoms which people have acquired over the last few years, their panicked attempt to regain control. All the bogeymen are being deployed, "Stop Terrorism", "Protect the Children", even "Safeguard your Culture" in many places.
So, since the highest level of security is so important to them, comply: use the strongest encryption possible, everywhere. This will of course also make your systems unbreachable and unmonitorable by them as well. Oh dear.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Hmm makes you wonder.
In Iraq they do this to you.
Humorless sig goes here.
Subject to your ISP's acceptable use policy. The concept of acceptable use is much like speed limits; completely ignore them and eventually other isp's will shut you off.
About speed limits, first that depends a whole lot on where you are, on either coast of the US, yes folks typically exceed the posted limit by 10-15 mph, otoh in AZ/MX nearly all traffic travels 10-15 mph under the (70mph) limit, while in the midwest I've found that people pretty much mark the posted limits.
However, you're not allowed on the road at all without maintaining your vehicle to safety and emissions standards, and (except in a few states) getting tagged at 90MPH+ earns both a stiff fine and a nasty hike in insurance rates.
I for one have darned little patience for irresponsible morons running insecure networks / systems that are a haven for script kiddies. So while the particular name on the problem today is terrorism, I pretty much welcome actual enforcement of some minimum standards of competence.
Because tracking an attacker who's grabbed onto an open AP is effectively *far* more difficult than other avenues, sorry but I think moves in this direction are probably a pretty good idea.
But then if it were up to me MCSE's wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a live 'net connection ;-).
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
how when we really need regulation, like keeping all the cable companies out of the internet business (net control + content ownership = lost rights and caps) the gov is keen to look the other way?
We're not far off from more examples of Starbucks-taking-over-wifi-everywhere. R.I.P. free and open networks.
Just as Microsoft uses the word "Security" to cover up changes to the software that take away functionality (e.g., introcution of DRM in Media Player), the US Government is using "Security" as a cover for its attempt to outlaw anonymity.
What will Homeland say about the free wireless community networks popping up all over the place? If these allow open, anonymous access, are they to be targeted by future regulatory action?
Would Homeland object if a company set up an encrypted, but open wireless network? It could offer each user privacy and security, while protecting the company's intranet from unauthorized access. This is already how many companies set up their wireless networks. It allows minimal configuration on the client side, and that reduces internal support costs. But it also offers a good degree of anonymity to users. It is anonymity to which Homeland ojbects, not a lack of "security" per se.
If they are going to go after 802.11b because of easy access, why not go after all the bell operators for pay phones since they could be used to plot terrorism? Why not go after all the radio shacks because equipment they sell can be used to make bombs?
This may sound like irrational conspiracy theory, but I actually think that this isn't about terrorism. It is a "foot in the water" test to slowly start regulating the net, and with it free speech.
Just my $.02...
--Jon
Even closed APs have breakable keys.
There are two issues.
The first is simply ACCESS to the internet. This is uncontrollable, just as access to the telephone network is (at least as long as there are public phones).
The second is TRACEABILITY. So even though the entire cyberinfrastructure will collapse, we can rest in the knowledge that the specific AOL dial-in and the phone jack where the evildoer connected will be found.
The latter has nothing to do with anti-Terrorism which by necessity bypasses niceties of proper procedure and due process to prevent great loss, but leaves evidence tainted for any trial.
The threat was there from before the first WTC attack. The second one didn't involve any high-tech. Just box-cutters. Our society is insecure - but that is economically more efficient. Even if we turn it into a surveillance state it will still be insecure.
For example, in the Northern Ireland conflict, they used Molotov Cocktails a.k.a. Petrel Bombs.
So are we going to have to all have secure gas caps ($50 locks like a Kaba or Medeco, not the cheap pickable ones) and have to go through the same kind of airport gate rape to get a fill-up at a gas station? One PSA noted one cup of gasoline is equivalent to 8 sticks of dynamite.
How are they going to fix this?
The problem is that the security agencies think like law enforcement, not terrorists.
The two other classes of similar problems that come to mind are Legerdemain and Thievery. You don't try to determine how a trick is done or how to create security, you try to determine how to do the trick, or how to find and exploit a security problem.
That is how Al Queda is operating. They found "box-cutters" got through. Now we are preventing them from getting through security and using secure doors for the cockpits (the latter suffices, so I guess they are keeping the gate-rape part because they like the sport).
I'm quite sure that Al Queda has already thought about this and is ahead, and that the average slashdot reader spending 15 minutes considering the problem will not be flying any time soon, but the Homeland Security Agency will go along oblivious to the next weakness until it is exploited, but instead seek to regulate visible but trivial things like open access points.
Which reminds me of a classic joke in several forms including an old I Love Lucy episode:
Ricky comes home to see Lucy crawling around the Living Room.
Ricky: "What are you doing?"
Lucy: "I lost my earrings."
Ricky: "You lost your earrings in the living room?"
Lucy: "No, I lost them in the bedroom - but the light is so much better out here."
The sad thing is that the terrorists are the only ones with any balls to stand up to the government.
The sad thing is that you felt compelled, and justifiably so, to post that insightful yet "Anti-Amarikin" remark as an AC. Just keep in mind that in the future, anonymous posting on Slashdot may have to be eliminated...because only Terrorists post as Anonymous Cowards.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I actually asked a 3com sales guy about it a year ago and got "Well personally there is nothing on my network worth breaking into and I doubt there is anything on yours either"
I know you realize this, but I feel like spelling it out for everyone who would read this sentiment and agree... Even if you don't have any DATA on your network that any hacker would want, you still have a NETWORK that hackers would love to control. 9999 times out of 10,000 "hackers" are not looking for blueprints on your top secret inventions that they could sell to a competitor. They are not looking for your credit card databases, nor your emails to use as blackmail. 9999 times out fo 10,000 they are not looking for data AT ALL! Instead they are looking for a network that they can control that will allow them to go and attack a DIFFERENT network. IF you wanted to hack into the DOD's computer network, would you do it from your home machine? Or ould you do it through a series of hacked accounts on other networks? If you are hosting child porn, would you prefer to have it sitting on the machine under your desk at the office, or would you prefer to put it on somone elses machine entirely?
If you think you are safe becuase there is no important *data* on your machines that hackers would want, you are not safe.
Next time you get this kind of answer make sure you get in writing the guy's willingness to take full responsibility when the MiBs come knocked at your door becuase your hacked machine was used to send death threats to the president.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I'm sitting here in the relative security we have north of the border, and I just don't understand how you americans let your government gets away with this.
Just yesterday, Slashdot had a story about New York radiation therapy patients being strip searched in the subway in the name of anti-terrorism.
And now this. Another example of your rights being taken away in the name of anti-terrorism.
More recently, Canadian citizens (even ones that have been citizens for a long time) are stopped at the border and detained for questioning and registration just because they were born in one of a list of 6-7 countries. (And they say it's not racial profiling.) Is this not overkill?
Here's another interesting story. One Canadian was imprisoned for 34 days for purchasing gas at a gas station 15 metres inside U.S. territory, as locals had been doing for years, with approval, or at least acknowledgement from U.S. border officials. His crime: he had a criminal record and a rifle in the back of his truck (he was going hunting). They claim he was supposed to check in at the U.S. customs station which is another kilometre down the road (and was closed at the time)! Was he a terrorist threat? I doubt it!
And now a personal anecdote: I was canoe tripping in Quetico Provincial Park (of Ontario) and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area (of northern Minnesota). It was so refreshing to be able to travel right along the border, maybe cross it for lunch and sleep in Canada, or zig zag down the centre of a lake or river and say "Canada, U.S., Canada, U.S." (kinda like that Simpsons episode where they go to Australia) We never went through U.S. customs; in fact we couldn't even find one if we tried. Next time I go back, I won'e be surprised if I see U.S. customs posts every other lake, with motor boats buzzing around in an attempt to keep out filthy-looking canoe trippers that have been in the bush for the last 30 days. Well... they could be terrorists.
In Canada, 56% of people think that Saddam's the biggest threat to world security, and 38% say it's Bush. (The poll results are here (PDF format)) Anyone surprised?
So now, the big question is why do Americans let the government walk all over the liberties and freedoms that they hold so dear to their existance?
Maybe you can answer that.
The American Government by American People and for American People must protect American People from all threats such as terrorism and terrorism comes in all forms it comes from everywhere that is UnAmerican! It is illegal to be UnAmerican because terrorists are! Let's protect the big corporations, because they define what American means. Let's protect AOL Time Warners cable company by forbidding WiFi networks. Let's enforce electronic ID on everyone and track everyone everywhere all the time everytime forever. Did you get your EID implanted? If you did not you are UnAmerican and illegal! Let's use MSPassport to pay for all our purchases, to pay for everything including cab and restaurant and subway and home insurance and taxes (tip is automatically calculated and included and taxed once again) so let's forbid paper money and if you are against it you are UnAmerican and thus you are a terrorist! Let's split the entire nation into an electronic grid 1kmX1km and in order for you to cross a line between grid cells let's authorize you with your MSPassport and if you are not authorized let's stop you by sending a special electrical signal into your brain to disable you (police car dispatch, please remain unconscious until we decide to turn you back on once you are in jail.) What the hell, let's connect everybody's brains to our computers so we can monitor your thoughts and emotions thus allowing us to force you to do exactly what you must, to force you to buy exactly what you must buy to stay American, so the commercials can be sent into your brain directly and since commercials are IP you will have to buy license to watch them, so for your convenience we'll just move 24.99 from your obligatory Credit Card (MS Passport.) And if at any point of time you will try to regain your own consciousness and try to actually think for yourself - you are UnAmerican and Illegal and a Terrorist and we will bomb the hell out of you.
God bless America!
You can't handle the truth.
Read the my sig.
These gun onwers might be our last help.
Hacking and slashdotting is not bad, but the last line of security is a good, 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle.
The website http://www.a-human-right.com - I saw that website a year ago and I didn't think too much about the issue even despite living in a country where gun ownership is common - is an eye-opener. Even if it doesn't coincide with your political views.
The sad thing is that you felt compelled, and justifiably so, to post that insightful yet "Anti-Amarikin" remark as an AC
So a person who stands up to the gov't is automatically classified as an "anti-american", and thus a labelled as a "terrorist"?
How convenient for the gov't and their media goons. It just makes anyone they want to take down so much easier as a "terrorist".
Black vans will be prowling around "sniffing" for wireless lans. When they prowl through your neighborhood and detect that you have 802.11 running they will send a SWAT team to kick your door in, shoot your dog and rip your house apart in the name of National Security because you are aiding and abetting "Abdul" down street.
Remember when they declared PGP to be a munition and banned it's export??
What do you think will happen when you begin to send PGP encrypted email to/from your friends?
Why would ANYONE want to hide anything??
When you hide something there must be a reason for it. Why make your conversations private? We can't have that now can we? Only terrorists would want to speak to one another in secret.
Privacy will become illegal in the near future, when nothing is hidden then there can be no terrorism, right?? And when someone tries to speak privately then those persons are plotting something and must be arrested for interregation.
They tried to push the clipper chip on us and nobody went for it. Now, we are staring down the barrel of Palladium and Longhorn and it's only a very short time before all privacy is lost and thus all freedoms are restricted.
We will be prisoners in our own minds.