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."'
What else will homeland think of next
and today all pr0n is banned becuase only terrorists shoot a load off
For God's sake, man, give us back our freedoms!!
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?
On the one hand, this obviously is an example of extreme overreaction and paranoia, they do have a point here.
Open wireless nets where anyone can log in without any trail left (other than the hacker must be physically close to the AP OR have a high gain antennae and be miles away) would allow someone to be truly anonymous online. They could trade in kiddey porn, hack poorly secured computer systems, say nasty things about federal employees...all the usual suspects that piss the government off. The government doesn't like this, and is using the umbrella of "homeland security" to do something about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (face it : any computer that controls anything truly important probably isn't connected to the internet or has extensive protection).
It would seem that anyone who could get internet access could potentially affect networks. Should they regulate AOL distributing CD's with a thousand free hours? I mean, the terrorists could easily use a stolen credit card (oh, I'm sure they'd have qualms about doing that...)to get initial access....
Okay, so they wouldn't be moving as fast as they would going through a corporate network.
But if a LAN Admin is stupid enough to leave his access points open (with access to the outside world), then the company gets what it deserves for hiring an MSCE to do its network design.
Yes, I run an open AP at home (and there's nothing really interesting to look at, I assure you), but I'm not to the point where I think it's a good idea to put one on the network at work. It's been discussed before, and it'd just be more difficult than it's worth.
"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," said Daniel Devasirvatham, who headed the Homeland Security task force for the Wireless Communications Association International trade association.
:)?
Right... So, open Wi-Fi, with that dangerous 50-foot useable radius is a top priority for national security. Why not just set up a National Firewall instead
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
But I wanted it to be read more widely than was happening with it on my own little homepage so I posted a copy at Kuro5hin. An advantage of the K5 version is that it enabled followup discussion.
Here's the intro:
Thank you for your attention.-- Could you use my software consulting serv
...is far worse than what any cyber-terrorist could dish out.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
I really see this and the real story on the same level. Shelters are run by volunteers charitably. Open WAPs are run by volunteers charitably. Both have the theoretical possiblity of aiding terrorism. Shouldn't both be banned if one is? Seriously, how far will we tolerate having our freedoms taken away in the name of security?
live(free) || die;
sure security is good but what about us people who want to share our connection with everybody and everybody?
Also...we should be free to be lazy.
internet like monkeys'
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
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable....for the purpose of spying on them and controlling our ability to peacefully associate on the net. Our right to assemble for the purpose of communication is gauranteed in the bill of rights, but is under assult.
As with the "Great Firewall of China" articles that I've been seeing here lately, governments are fearfull of any tool that would allow people to communicate freely. Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I notice in this article that there is no discussion at all about why this is necessary for security. I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
We must force our government to explain WHY this and all of the other USA Patriot act bullshit is necessary....making Bush, Poindexter, Ashcroft and the others explain their position to everyone is the act of a real patriot.....don't believe the hype.....
The very title of the department is unfortunate. The tin ear that brought us "Operation Infinite Justice" has surpassed itself with "Homeland Security." The word 'Homeland' is somewhat alien to the American experience. We are a nation of immigrants and decendants of immigrants. Our 'Homeland,' for the most part, is somewhere else. Our country, is America. Of course, National Security Department, and Defense Department were already taken.
The worst part about pronouncements like this is what will actually happen when there is some sort of important warning to get out. Wolf, I cry, Wolf!
I wonder whose advice the feds have been taking on this matter -- could it be from "experts" in the wireless industry, who are in the business of selling wireless, and want to ensure there's no competition?
The government wants harder to break 802.11b. The entire complaint is that 802.11b security is a joke and it's too easy to crack.
So "Big Brother" in this case is saying, "Make your data harder to snoop".
"All they want to do is mandate minimum security levels for Wi-Fi network operators so as to prevent intrusions."
You just don't get it.
Envision this scenario.
In the not too distant future, maybe 10 years from now, a company creates a wifi "web" technology. IT works like the internet. Except without WIRES. It works just like the internet. Someone connects to another local computer, or several of them, and they pass the data along from computer to computer till their reach their destination... JUST LIKE NOW, but without wires.
Except that with idiots creating laws like this, we will never have that internet utopia. It would be illegal to allow just ANY computer to connect to your "network" because the government doesn't want you to be able to allow people to connect to you if you don't know who they are.
Have you ever heard of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION? I consider this a freedom of association. I have the right to allow strangers into my house. I also have the right to allow strangers to go through my filing cabinets. And damnit, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW STRANGERS TO LOG ONTO THE NET through my pc!
The fact that terrorists could use this as a tool to help them out is NOT a good enough reason to crush this sort of technology. This sort of technology has WIDE reaching uses far GREATER than the risk involved could EVER be.
Imagine if this sort of legislation was enacted on the INTERNET back in the 1990's. That it was deemed dial up conenctions were too dangerous to allow to connect to the net, because it is too easy for someone to purchase a dial up account and connect from a large number of locations, and move about secretly.
We would HAVE NO INTERNET TODAY.
And we will have no WIFI INTERNET 2 tomorrow if such BACKWARD thinking people as yourself are allowed to create assinine laws like this.
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."
Your analogy is poor. High speed kills thousands upon thousands of people a year, and the benefit from it is very small. The risk to benefit ratio is very high.
The benefit from this EXTREMELY great. And the risk is REALLY SMALL. And shitting it down would do little to NOTHING to prevent the terrists from speaking secretly. So the risk to benefit ratio for this is really LOW.
LOW RISK, HIGH BENEFIT.
They MUST NOT do this. It would be ABSURD and make us fall even farther behind countries like Singapore where EVERYONE has a high speed net connection whereas most Americans are still on dialup. When they have WIFI internet that is FREE, with FREE BANDWIDTH, and we don't, it will hurt our economy, and JUST PLAIN SUCK.
They seem to be saying that leaving unsecured WiFi is a way to allow hackers into your network.
For example. Imagine you had a bunch of windows machines on your home LAN, and they all connected to the net through a Linux or BSD firewall using NAT or something. You put up a Wifi net so you can user your laptop, and now everything's vulnerable.
The situation is even worse at a large company that might have sensitive documents, or tons of unpached computers waiting to be hacked and turned into DDOS zombies.
I don't think he's attacking open Wi-Fi connections that let anyone get online anonymously, at least not directly, just pointing out that Wi-fi can punch holes in security systems, and allow hackers to get in and fuck with your stuff.
At least, I certainly hope he's not saying the government is going to make open wi-fi illegal.
Open wifi is a tool that can be used for good or ill. Better laws would mandate that servers be patched and such.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
yes, people today in the US fell less secure in some ways, say, when traveling on airlines. this is understandable due to the trauma of 9-11 and the threat of worse, such as the SAM attack in Kenya last week. bad things do happen in the world, they are unavoidable, and my mother would agree, better paranoid than alive.
however, it is this /.er's opinion that the right wing extremists of our beloved (not) presidential administration is overly eager to use the situation to extend the police powers of the state.
every little chink in personal liberty, every new crime invented, every new link to terrorism where it does not exist, ALL of THEM, are affronts to not only the liberty of the land of the free, but to the free world at large.
take Jose Padilla. an enemy combatant now, why? last time i looked (i took a history degree in a prior life) a Citizen of the United States had certain rights, even if he used them in a way detrimental to society. this is a "free" country, treason is an option, still punishable by death, none the less an option. that isn't to say it's my choice, but he made his willingly. why is he all of the sudden, this native born son (or bastard, don't know yet really, do we?) having something taken by Ashcroft (remember, he did lose an election to a corpse before his elevation to Grand Inquisitor), that a proper court of Law would only strip of him (this is being decided now) in the most dire of circumstances.
wi-fi security is just another nick in the neck of lady liberty. unfortunately, if you add the nicks up, there's a gaping hole at the moment, and not enough people to stand up to GOP sticks and stones making these nicks. may the god i don't believe exists help us all, without faith based government initiatives.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
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}
In other news, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement outlining that planes, trucks and box cutters are tools for terrorists and therefore will be dissolved out of society. Director of Homeland Security, Steven Martin, is quoted to have called these tools of terrorism "double plus not good".
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
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.
Let me give you a list of things that aid and abet terrirists: 1. Water. Terrorists drink it you know. 2. Toliets. They use these too. 3. Beds. Terrorists sleep you know. 4. Air. They also breathe. 5. Newspapers, books, especially phone books. You know that terrorists wuse codes based upon all of these, don't you? 6. Telephones. Terrorists use the phone to talk to each other 7. The Internet. Enough said? 8. Restaurants. Terrorists meet at restaurants. 9. TV, Cable TV, the radio. Terrorists use all of these to see what their cohorts are up to. 10. Parks. terrorists meet at parks all the time. 11. Train stations, bus stations, airports. Terrorists meet at all these places. They use these to travel. Just think of what they did with airplanes after all. 12. Stores. Terrorists buy items used in terrorism there after all. 13. Cars. Terrorists travel in cars all the time. Same thing with motorcycles, motor scooters and bicycles. We need to BAN these items as soon as possible! Don't be surprised if this is just scratching the surface. Another list will be out next week. Please not that guns are not on the list though. After all, if guns are banned, only terrorists will have guns!
What's next? Regulation of the open ethernet ports or phone lines in lobbies and libraries?
I suppose I am aiding terrorism by providing an open (but regularly monitored) open AP for the couple hundred feet around my apartment and for providing ethernet drops to my neighbors.
I know it isn't a paranoid design, but it is regulated through monitoring. If it is abused I'll lock out the abusers and depending on the specific abuse, I might even do offensive data collection and hand data over to the authorities. I think my "policies" are sufficient so that I can help out neighbors that need access and keep abuses to a minumum.
Must all communication be trackable? I guess we have freedom to speak, but not to listen?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Terrorists use these too after all.
Would wireless networking users rather:
A. Secure their access points now
or
B. Be responsible when an unauthorized user uses their open access point for illegal activities
Slashdot is for geeks, but you forgot:
Sex!
Breed terrorist, breed!
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
I have tp agree this IS bullsh!t. Let them show they are at least competant before they start asking for more. Let them at least SPOT Bin Laden, then we can talk some more. But until they show they can use what they have, I see no reason for them to get more.
Seems like I have yet to hear a single good idea from the White House, including dems and non-partisans as well.
Why the white house can only come up with obvious ideas that a 6 year old can thing of, yet they want us to think they are intelligent and smart is beyond me.
Their decisions show the intelligence and innovativeness of a child.
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."
Ignoring the arguments about whether it's "terrorism", this does touch on a very important issue. Does making your computer deliberately insecure count as negligence if it is used to commit a crime? Are you liable if you accidentally leave your car unlocked and it is used to commit a crime? What if you did so deliberately? What if you put a sign in the window saying "Anyone is free to use this car so long as you return it"? Where do you draw the line between generosity and irresponsibility?
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
I think there are a number of different things going on here.
First of all, we're talking about an administration that is breathtakingly clueless about technology. Because they don't understand how a thing works means that the thing will be used to wreak havoc, right? That sounds chillingly similar to our cold war "capability equals intent" policy.
I also think it's a pretty solid bet that the infotainment industry is fueling those fears to protect their investment in broadband and their ability to sell it.
I also tend to think that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush view technology (espcially technology that provides or enhances intellectual freedom) of any kind as an inherent threat to his vision of what America should be. After all, "There ought to be limits to freedom."
Karma
I just opened my Wireless router wide open. Anyone with an 802.11b network card should have no problem immediately getting an IP address from my router and should have completely open and unrestricted access to the internet from anywhere within about 800ft of my house. I encourage every single one of the 250,000 daily slashdot readers who has a wireless access point or a wireless router to do the same thing. Secure your computers, open your wireless.
To hell with the Dept of Homeland insecurity and their ridiculous ranting. They can take their Gibsonesque FUD elsewhere.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Yeah, like that'll happen.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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*
Best rant ever!
If I had some mod points I would use them and give you a +1 Kick Ass Rant.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
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.
Argument by analogy is always a dicey proposition. It's not clear how speed limits are precisely the same as mandating a secure network. After all, the threat of bodily harm is far more readily apparent in the latter case. If you want to extend this analogy to its natural conclusion, you would be forced to agree that mandating secure wireless networks is wrong, because the government cannot establish a speed limit on private roads...oh sure, you can get to public roads (the internet) from your private road, but regulation does not apply until that threshold is crossed.
So let's drop the shallow analogy and argue the actual point at hand. Many home and business users would probably stand to gain from regulations of WiFi equipment. However, only a few business and institutions are actually in a position where a network compromise could prove dangerous. And these should clearly not be employing wireless technology (I would be concerned, for example, if the computer network controlling the local nuclear power plant were attached to a wireless network...) But for the average business, or home network, the real concern is not that vital computer systems are more vulnerable (since there is no shortage of systems hacked through the wire network), but the greater anonymity afforded the attacker.
I don't deny that this is a problem, and makes serious attacks that much harder to prosecute, but it does pose an important question for the general populace as this technology becomes ubiquitous. Namely, what are the responsibilities of a private citizen to monitor their own private network? I mean, whether the hole in security is due to faulty protocols implemented in the hardware or a clueless user (or an intentionally open network) is immaterial from the perspective of infrastructure security. I think this discussion needs to happen soon, and should not be one-sided (the government lecturing the public).
I also think it mildly amusing that the government is now incredibly concerned with the security of private home and small-business networks, given its own chequered past, with missing laptops and high-profile break-ins. Maybe the terrorists don't need much help
Apologies for rambling...
Cheers,
The Mouser
Do you realize this puts a stop to wireless internet services that are intentionally left open for free public access?
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
Call me crazy, but if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, then you have *not* done the right thing. You just got lucky.
Like what I said? You might like my music
It was originally a joke by Yakov Smirnoff. Then it turned into a meme on Fark, got added to their filters, and moved to Slashdot. Basically, the idea is to take a sentence, switch it around, and add "In Soviet Russia" (e.g., "You watch television." becomes "In Soviet Russia, television watches YOU!").
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
Obviously......
The Fed's consider domestic terrorists to be a greater threat than the one posed by the foreign terrorists?
Not a day goes by, without my server being an attacked by Nimda, or some hack attempt from a foreign land.
Nothing in their grand plan secures those foreign ISP's or those already hacked domestic PC's.
Or the million or so, H1-B's tech workers they left running amuck in the USA.
Makes you wonder, just who is running the Fed's funny farm?
The car doesn't have to be actually used in a crime.
She gave me the specific example of how her next-door neighbor in the town of Fortune left her keys in her car parked on her driveway. The car was stolen by some joyriders and driven over a cliff. The neighbor was charged for leaving the keys in the car.
I leave it up to you to debate whether that was appropriate or not, but it makes a certain sense to me.
However, if your network is buttoned-down so no one can crack your hosts, but you provide free anonymous internet access to anyone who might happen to be in the neighborhood, I don't see how that could legitimately be considered negligence.
Instead, I see that as providing a valuable public service, for example to enable those working for legitimate political change to communicate among themselves without fear of reprisal.
That's not terrorism - at least not if what the folks are doing anonymously on the Internet is planning to win an election that would remove a despotic regime from office.
No, that's one of the basic principles upon which our great nation was founded.
Anonymous pamphleteering, for example, was one of the popular ways of promoting patriotic causes in the early days of the union.
It's been done elsewhere. I understand the British put a price on Jonathan Swift's head for writing A Modest Proposal.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
- Public Libraries
- Kinko's
- Hotel Rooms
- Tourist Information Centers
- Airport Lounges
- Highway Rest Stops (often have Public Internet Terminals)
- Internet Cafes
- Cable Company Kiosks
I hope that helps you commit your fiendish acts of email and web browsing after all the 802.11b access points in the world have been properly secured.Praise Allah.
See, terrorists can put items on ebay and use the money they make to promote more terrorism! So..when you use Ebay, you're helping terrorism.. get it? This will have to be on next week's list. Thank you, John Asscroft
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?
Reporter: We hear that you've come up with a list of things that should be regulated because a terrorist may use these things to cause harm. One of the well known ones is wifi networks, are there any others and how do you think terrorists are using them to their advantage?
Bush: Yes, well one of our other main concerns is airports.
Reporter: Airports?
Bush: Yes, airports. I spent millions of dollars researching previous terrorist attacks to see what they may do. It turns out, in every airline hijacking the terrorists went to an airport to board the plane. If we shut down the airports the terrorists can't get onto the planes so there will be no more airline hijackings.
Reporter: But how will people fly planes?
Bush: I am not at liberty to disclose that information at this present time for fear that terrorists may use it to their advantage.
Reporter: Ok... moving on, it says here that you've decided to enforce stricter laws on, I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, buying coats?
Bush: Yes, that's right, it seems that most suicide bombers hide explosives under some sort of coat. If the terrorists can't buy the coats, they can't hide the bombs, if they can't hide the bombs, they can't blow themselves up. It will eliminate the suicide bomber threat.
Reporter: But if we can't buy coats how will we keep warm in the winter?
Bush: See that's the beauty of it, there's this great thing I heard about called global warming. We're not going to need the coats because it's getting warmer, not colder!
Reporter: Ummmm, right, well anyway, what's this about putting restrictions on telephone use?
Bush: Ahhh, that's my greatest plan of all, see now if I can stop the terrorists from using telephones, cell phones, earphones, headphones, megaphones, all types of phones, they won't be able to talk to each other. If they can't talk to each other they can't plan things or make threats or do any of that nasty terrorist stuff.
Reporter: How are you planning on stopping terrorists from using phones?
Bush: Well I'm going to make it illegal under the new "Apple Pie and Baseball, God Bless America Act". Under this act, it's unamerican to use telephones, and it's illegal to be unamerican because terrorists are unamerican.
Reporter: But how bad would it be if we stopped using telephones? What if there's an emergency and you need to use a phone?
Bush: Emergency? What emergency? Are you hiding something? Are you a terrorist?
Reporter: That's the most rediculous thing I've heard, what makes you think I'm a terrorist?
Bush: AHA! Only a terrorist would say something like that! Seize her!
*At this time 5 secret service agents arrest the reporter, hold her in prison for weeks without telling her what she's done, or giving her a trial, or a lawyer*
Sad thing is that's not too unlikely
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?
One of the referring pages I found listed in my log is I've held it in too long: I am no longer Proud to be an American. wherein the poster says:
and so on.Look at the bottom of the guy's post where he gives a link with the text "This is what inspired me to finally say something".
I've worried about the potential for backlash by saying what I did in such a public way, and further to be making such an effort to get people to read it.
But if I was able to get even one person to speak out as this fellow said I did, well that makes it all worthwhile.
There's lots of people who posted to the K5 discussion who don't agree with what I said, but that doesn't bother me so much. I'm very pleased to have opened up so much debate. People are talking about these issues that might not have otherwise.
People need to talk about this stuff, or we will end up in a great deal more trouble than we are already in.
And there were some fairly intelligent points raised at K5 that seem to poke holes in my argument. That's OK too, because I have answers to their objections, and will be able to make some small revisions to my original piece that should ultimately make it stronger and more convincing. So in the end those who found fault with my essay have done me a favor.
Finally, in the little while between posting the above and being just about to post this, my copy of the essay has received 102 page views referred from this slashdot discussion.
I'm very glad of that - prior to posting at K5, the essay was getting about 300 page views a month. So far this month (just a few days into the month) my copy has got 594 page views, and I imagine the K5 post got many times that.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
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?!
Note that this was 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in San Francisco, California. Justices for this court are drawn from places like Hawaii and California, where the law has been drawn strictly against private firearms ownership. This court is also heavily stacked with Democratic appointees - of the 28 congressionally allowed spots, 17 are Democratic, and only 7 are Republican (yes, there are vacancies - you can blame the previously Democratically held Senate for that.) Worse, cases are usually decided by a 3 judge panel, so it isn't as though the decision was a consensus of all 24 active judges.
Please note, that this decision goes against the current administration's belief that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, so I'd expect press from the White House regarding this in the near future. Basically, all this means is that they'll have to go to the next layer above the 9th circuit (Appellate? Supreme Court? Someone who remembers the judicial review process please speak up...) It probably would be more effective in the short term to amend the California Constitution to prohibit laws infringing on the individual right to bear arms, but given the politics here, we're probably better off waiting until the Supreme Court (which seems to have a better understanding of the Constitution) weighs in.
Another note - for those of you willing to sit through the 70 pages of court opinion (I just skipped to the back) you will notice that the court judged the 2nd amendment to be a collective right, and as such, the provision in the California assault weapons act allowing retired officers to hold so called assault weapons to be inconsistent with the intent of the CAWCA (California Assault Weapons Control Act.) I wonder what the Fraternal Order of Police has to say about this...
Final note. None of this would even be an issue if Bill Lockyer and Gray Davis had been cashiered a long time ago (yes, the original Roberti-Roos act was signed in 1989, but it only banned a few models specifically by name. The amended 1999 act, signed by Davis, bans firearms by type - no centerfire rifles with detachable magazines and flash surpressors, no fixed magazines greater than 10 rounds, etc.) Those of you who can, but don't vote, have only yourselves to blame...
So are they saying all you need is ACCESS to the Internet to do a crime?
I don't really think they care about access to the internet, they just don't like the idea of untraceable access. Connecting directly to the net thru an ISP they can at least try to follow a paper trail and figure some things out about where you connected from... connecting to an open AP all they have is a MAC addy that any moron can change on their own.
Do you really think they care how secure your computers and network are? Heck they would probably be happy if everyone's hard drive could be inspected easily remotely (sounds like a good windfall of intelligence to them i bet), they just don't want people able to use the net anonymously is my guess.
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).
The real reason behind canning open access wireless is this: If people can connect freely thanks to altruistic techs, they won't pay $49.99 a month to some random lobbying corporation.
It is recently announced that a group of companys' are joining together to provide nationwide wireless access, for a fee of course. Then the next day the government comes out trying to make it illegal to provide free internet access.
What a big suprise.
Netzero you better start sending money to DC or your going to be next.
So how long before skateboarding is a crime?
I was going to ask, but was too embaressed.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
"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.
Maybe the schmucks that are running the Internet show should be held responsible if their network is at risk. Open wireless networks are usually decentralized and able to withstand a network attack much more gracefully than a structured network such as a corporate LAN or even the Internet. Once all these local open wireless nets work their way into spanning the world the network will be much more robust against attack. Not that I don't love the Internet but it certainly isn't my fault if people can break it so easily.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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?
You're probably right, and I'm probably writing down that which is commonly mis-pronounced. What you're saying makes a good bit more sense then what is commonly said (or at least what I hear when someone says it).
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Since being named special advisor to the president for cyberspace security last year, Clarke has stressed wireless access points as a national security threat.
Ten years ago, who would have thought we'd hear phrases like that in the popular press.
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
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?
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.
Nobody can honestly blame the government for being concerned about network security. They recognize a valid threat to a growing part of our country's infrastructure, and geek ethics be damned, they're probably going to want to do something about it.
The article does well to point out that the verdict is not yet in; the Feds have yet to figure out what should be done.
If ever there were an opportunity to demonstrate to the Powers That Be the inherent value of OSS/FS, this is it.
The Office of Homeland Security, bureaucratic as it may be, is going to be looking at this issue carefully. There's a good chance they will decide, "We can't issue mandates to private businesses, but we can set internal policy, and we can make recommendations." Suppose the Office recommended OSS/FS platforms, as opposed to proprietary software, precisely because of its security strengths. They might even be convinced of the need for extra funding to OSS/FS security-based groups.
I think this battlefield, the struggle to win the heart of Tom Ridge, could turn out to be far more important to the OSS/FS communities than the fight for the desktop.
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.
Whenever you buy gasoline, youre supporting terrorism.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Is that some sort of distribution that's even more bloasted than RedHat??
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
Sometimes people have things to say that the government doesn't want anyone to hear.
For them to be able to say it, they need to feel safe from reprisals.
People being able to post stuff on the net through an open wireless access point is one way that one can say something important without fear of official retribution.
For example, one could blow the whistle, anonymously, on a crime that has been committed by a government official. Reports of such official crime, for example presidential employees wiretapping the opposing political party, have already been enough to cause a regime change in the U.S. - most slashdotters are too young to remember but Dubya is old enough.
Most methods of internet access (such as all those AOL CDs) leave audit trails. They may not be able to prevent people from posting to the net, but they can track them down and either imprison or kill the posters afterwards, and to a large extent, the knowledge of that possibility is enough to prevent many people from speaking out.
So let me suggest that a good way to ensure a free and fair presidential election in 2004 would be to remove the password from your wireless access point.
Thank you for your attention.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Read the international building code. and the international residential code.
the interesting thing is that there's even regulations about what kind of security you are prohibited from putting on your building.
The thing is though building security != network security. while door locks and building alarm systems and indeed buildings themselves are well understood, the wireless network and the way we want to use it is new and evolving.
Imagine if you were trapped by an earthquake under tonnes of microwave transparent material, and the only thing in your little coffin shaped cavity was your fully charged and still operational laptop. You fire up snort and find a wireless lan and then attempt to contact the admin...
Network security could be a matter of life and death.
Now suddenly they are being asked to do something other than obtain campaign donations and talk crap on TV. And they have not the slightest idea what to do. When a politican or a civil servant doesn't know what to do, what is the reaction? Find something that people are doing, and stop it. It is so much easier to ban something than to think of a positive action.
The posters who are making jokes about banning telephones and coats are not actually that far off the mark. In the Soviet Union, that dangerous instrument the typewriter required a licence, and all official typewriters had their fingerprint taken by the KGB so that any typed document could be traced to the original machine. As for photocopiers, each one had its KGB operative to control access. We now seem to be heading for a government policy of achieving basically the same thing electronically. In the long term, it is likely to be about as successful.
The big problem is, who is going to educate the politicians? Or do we need to find a way to replace them with younger, better educated ones who might actually have a clue about the modern world?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Public libraries - usually requires library card with name and address on record. otherwise the person at the loans desk will have seen you. That's part of how they caught that big identity theft guy.
kinkos - never used it myself. Is there a security camera behind the desk?
hotel room - the clerk saw you, and would probably identify you in a line up. Happens to people all the time.
Tourist information center - clerk and camera.
Airport lounge - you probably have an air plane ticket. Interpol is great at tracking those. using a fake name/passport just makes them feel like it's going to be a good day.
Highway rest stop - actually this might be a pretty good one. The only thing I can think of is taking biometric evidence like a fingerprint off the coin you fed it. unless there's a clerk and camera.
internet cafe - clerk and camera.
cable company kiosks - Do you mean those kiosks which stand in the middle of the street? They usually are very crippled in their interface. you can't even run ping. I dunno. Maybe you might be able to exploit them.
I think the evidence for the existence of hydrinos is better than evidence that intelligent people have ever trusted the Bush Administration.
Tech Public Policy stuff
When companies discover that not bringing their servers up to "best practices" standards doubles their insurance premiums and that running IIs with half-competent MCSEs is an expensive luxury for them as well as the rest of us and broadband home users running open relay boxes get sued, the word to "tighten up or else" will get around real fast.
It isn't just open access Wi-Fi ports that are the problem. Yes, these things should default to "secure" out of the box. However, cablemodem setups should also come with firewalls installed out of the box as well.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This also means that sooner or later, this will probably wind up being resolved at the Supreme Court level.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I read your page, and remembered that I always meant to join the ACLU, but never got around to it. Well, I'm a member now. Thanks for the link.
I find it amazing that belonging to an organization whose only stated purpose is defending the Constitution - the same oath that the President takes, I might add - is considered a legitimate point for attack by many in this country.
This is ridiculous. I've been running an open AP at home for over a year now, quite on purpose. If you want my bandwidth then have at it. I'm not using it 99% of the time, so have fun. If you hack my machine (good luck!) then you now 0wn all my porn, to-do lists, and pictures from Europe. Enjoy.
I'm well aware of the ramifications of running an open AP and I do it anyways. Now this makes me a criminal? That's just insane. I'm going to be a fucking felon, just because I let somebody check their e-mail on my dime?
Alright, say I buckle and secure my home network. What are they going to do to my employer? I work at a fucking school. Providing free bandwidth is part of my job. Are they going to lock down my computer labs? Are we going to run background checks on all of our students? Are we going to have to close our doors because the public is too dangerous to be allowed near a computer?
I am pissed beyond all reason at this. Secure wi-fi is fine and dandy, but sometimes access needs to be free.
This
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
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
You are absolutely correct. However, politicians may steal as much as they can, but it's the people that still elect them. Only when the masses wake up will things change. And unfortunately, throughout history, this has rarely happened until after the point of no return.
What you list above is an admirable way to protect the 'homeland' but it still misses the main problem. Check out Usama's letter on what his reasoning is. We were founded on the premise of religious tolerance. However, there are elements linked to the government through the current administration that are now just as bad as Usama himself. Extremist conservtives drunk with intolerance of any religion other than Christianity and set on enforcing their view of morality on the rest of the world - just like Usama. Only difference is that they have the worlds largest military and corporations to back it up.
When and if we correct this problem, will there be no or little reason to monitor our borders and ports - except maybe to keep others away from prosperity (which sounds odd if you think about it). But for now, I fear you're correct and we are already starting to see ridiculous examples of democracy gone awry.
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.
Forbid everything connected and any terrorist can still use the net untraced. Steal a mobile phone, snatch the sim-card and put it into a mobilephone modem connected to your laptop. They really dont get it, the more people thay trace and spy on the bigger holes there will be in the net.
The most funny thing is that terorists have pretty much abandoned the net and use IRL messages while homeland security is focusing on phones and the internet to no use. This makes me wonder if the act is just an excuse to spy on USA's own citizens.
HTTP/1.1 400
If someone breaking into a bunch of 802.11b networks (at 10Mbps) can bring down the network of this country, the US portion of the Internet is flakier than I thought and we really have bigger problems than this.
In any case, people cut through major cables, there are earthquakes, there are software glitches, etc. Major chunks of the US Internet will go down, even without terrorists, sooner or later, just like major chunks of the telephone network have gone down from time to time. People better be prepared for that; it just shouldn't be a serious matter.
It's not the Department of Homelamd Security. It's the Ministry for State Security.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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
That I've been trying desperately for years to tell people this was happening time. But no one listened, I was just a 'nut'.. Then 9/11 happened and I said it again, but I was 'anti patriotic', so again, no one listened.
Even in school in the 80's people that valued freedom, our constitution, and wanted to protect both were labeled 'radical' and programmed to think it was wrong.. In reality we were no different then our founding fathers, and should have been labeled 'federalists' instead..
Now here we are, almost at the gates of oblivion.. Who among us will be the first person to stand up and say NO.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ok ok.. so the word 'time' out of the first sentence was supposed to be edited out.. so sue me :)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I am wondering if we could convince the Goverment that only Terrorist Send SPAM. That way we can use these laws for our advantage.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We are obviously willing to give up our freedoms b/c of that bearded fuck w/limp and a cammo jacket...
Funny, I don't see any bearded person handing down these pronouncements from the Department of Homeland Security.
Yes, Osama was the bearded fuck who guided jet planes into the WTC and started this mess, but be honest -- the erosion of Americans' civil liberties and rights in the 15 months since have been guided by the Supreme Court-appointed poser sitting in the White House right now, and his team of right-wing extremist croneys. They're simply using the bearded fuck as an excuse for their actions.
You're right, though, that too many people are giving President Ripper free rein on this mess. Vote him out of office in '04!
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Okay, now I feel better about posting now that I found someone else sharing a similar view.
At the risk of inviting flames and down-mods, I believe we need to take a moment to see the government's side in all of this and understand where they are coming from. The cries of "police state!" I am hearing do not ring true after reading this article. The reason for this is that I did not see a single mention of the government's intent to regulate what information flows through the network.
Think about it for a moment. What is the government asking? They're asking WiFi networks for some basic level of security, something similar to what you see on most non-wireless networks.
Yes, a setup like this may mean the end of free network access. Well, that's too bad. Face it, folks. There's no free lunch anymore. You want access, you pay for it. It's as simple as that. And any access to the network is going to mean some basic level of security, even if its only requiring a login/account number and a password, which is exactly what you have today in non-WiFi networks.
Now, will this stop terrorism on the net? Unlikely. In this I totally agree that the government's thinking is flawed. But realize also that the government may not be thinking this if people who run the servers that are getting hacked WOULD SECURE THEIR GODDAMN BOXES. With the cutbacks in IT budgets, companies are hiring lower-paid, less qualified staff to run their servers and they're leaving their machines wide open. This is where the problem really needs to be addressed, and the government needs to be made aware of this fact. But knee-jerk reactions like "The government is enacting a police state!" and "This is a government conspiracy to take away our rights!" is just going to get you branded a crank at best and a radical at worst.
If ever there were an opportunity to demonstrate to the Powers That Be the inherent value of OSS/FS, this is it.
I agree with this statement, but this is not the complete answer. OSS systems can be just as insecure as proprietary if people do not set them up correctly. We must be careful not to suggest this as a magic-bullet, cure-all solution. The government must be made to know that there is NO quick-fix solution.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Yeah, right.
Just one minor point:
... one can very easily argue that al queda/ taliban fighters didn't meet all of these requirements.
;) ... but it seems that all the claims of bush's war acts violating international and domestic law aren't entirely accurate. Both sides of a debate need to be well-informed for it to get anywhere. Perhaps the laws of war need to be reformed, but we're not really breaking them.
detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?
I've heard statements like this a lot, and believed them until I actually did some research and read up on the Geneva convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) and other applicable war laws (ie War Powers Act of 1973).
There are some very high standards that enemy combatants must meet in order to have the right of POW status. If they don't meet all of them than a country doesn't have to give them POW treatment. The factors are:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The only thing I wonder about the detained prisoners is if we met the requirements in this passage: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Did we ever give the detainees a tribunal to confirm that they're not POW's?
--
On a related note, don't go into the "but Congress never declared war" argument unless you can point out *exactly* where it says in the geneva convention that you need a declaration of war. I read "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict" which seems to make it unnecessary. And the war powers act cited above gives congress the power to give the president specific wartime powers without a formal declaration of war (see "specific statutory authorization" under section 2(c)).
I just want to say that I hate the bush regime and their attitude towards international and domestic affairs (esp the OHS) as much as the next whiny liberal
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
So you are perfectly willing to blindly give access to anyone wandering by.
Then when you get shut down for initiating a DOS attack, or spamming or whatever you'll probaly claim "but it wasn't me, I didn't know".
It is your connection, it is your responsiblity.
If people can't play nicely and take responsiblity themselves the government HAS to regulate it.
The behavior of the department of homeland security is utterly predictable; it is exactly the behavior of wildebeests. Rather than do something about the lions, wildebeest bulls push the herd around. All of our current 'security' is based on looking suspiciously at all of the wildebeests to make sure that they aren't lions is disguise; one could scarcely come up with more idiotic behavior.
Animal herds respond to pressure - not to vacuum - as a result herds stampede away from danger. If herds stampeded as a response to 'vacuum' then it would follow attacking bulls and trample predators - instead of running from them. That simple change would be the end of the lions who are built to attack the spine of a fleeing animal - not respond to the charging attacks of raging bulls.
What prevents the United States from charging? The answer is 'Political Correctness'. I will tell you how to forever end 'Political Correctness' as a force.. Simply invite all of the politically correct college professors to the local high schools to give a lecture to the student body on political correctness. Before the professors can start speaking the high school football team goes on stage and drags the professors into the nearest girls bathroom and starts dunking the professors' heads in the toilets while the cheerleaders all stand around laughing at them. This would expose "Political Correctness' for what it really is; a bunch of passive aggressive weenies who are trying to make people feel bad.
The fact that 'Political Correctness' wouldn't survive the 'dunk' test makes the physical demonstration unnecessary; the movement collapses from its own internal weakness and corruption. Passive aggression is just pathetic behavior to try basing anything on.
Even Ghandi's form of passive aggression can't survive the girls bathroom treatment. By the way - how many of you knew Ghandi was islamic? Kind of changes your view of what he had to say doesn't it? It is one thing when a 'rabbit' tells you to adopt the posture of never fighting back - he does so from a position of courage - it is something entirely different when it is a 'crocodile' telling you to never fight back; one has to suspect the latter of having a rather obvious agenda.
What about the open mail relays? There is untraceable mail bouncing all over the place.
If the feds put the muscle against the open SMTP relays that are more likely being used for terrorist communications, the side-effects of less spam would gather them a lot of support, instead of this Don Quixote tilting-at-WiFi crap.
News flash, suspected terrorists will be forced to wear mittens to prevent communication via sign language...after the required $100 million spent on "intelligence" of course.
I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
No, but he could introducce a virus or a worm from that point.
I've been saying this for months: if you run a wide-open AP, with the full knowledge that you are providing anonymous connectivity to others, you should not be surprised when someone uses that open AP to perform an illegal act, and the feds trace that act back to you.
If they can't nail you for the illegal act, there is definitely an argument that you aided and abetted. You knowingly left your AP wide open for others to use and "conveniently" failed to provide a mechanism for authentication.
So what happens? Would you rather the feds say, "Oh shucks, looks like it was an anonymous user using the 'Net through this fine citizen's free Wi-Fi resource, guess we'll never catch them."
This way lay anarchy. That's basically saying any Internet crime is now untraceable and unpunishable. Just find one of those Slashdot kids that has an open Wi-Fi network and commit crimes to your heart's content.
It's not just about electronic terrorism, or even the coordination of traditional terrorist activities.
Anonymous communications is a dangerous thing.
Here on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards are not fully anonymous. Slashdot logs the IP address and time of every IP post. If I find a post that allows me to take legal action against that poster, I file the case and then ask the judge to subpoena Slashdot to turn over the IP address from which the AC post orignated from. I can then look up who owns the IP block that IP address belongs to, and subpeona that ISP to give me the name and billing address on the account that had that IP address at the time of the post. Gotcha.
The internet is inhernetly P2P already. Get some business-class bandwidth (instead of the restricted consumer-priced stuff) and you can set up any services you want, and offer them to anybody you want.
The new definition of P2P seems to be "let me send and receive data in an untraceable way because I want to transfer data that's illegal to transfer." Be it a pirated MP3 or an order to a sleeper cell, neither should be allowed.
Our freedoms are disappearing at a frightening rate. The Bush admin has done a number of song and dance routines about Anthrax. The security that has been implemented since 9/11 is a joke. It is still easy to attack the aircrafts, airports, trains, or cars. It is still easy to get anything into this country. In all fairness, that is and always will be the case in all countries that have large infrastructure and borders. But now Bushes cronies blame 802.11 for causing problems while still pushing MS everywhere. At the same time, the fight OSS of anytype even though it has been proven over and over that OSS is better in anything dealing with server space. Finally, they threw a group to study 802.11 by its competitors and they come out blaming all sorts of problems on it and ask for regulations. That meeting is almost certainly the same as Cheny's meeting with Enron on how to deal with USA's Oil issues. WakeUp USA, IKE warned us and we did not listen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
'If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating,'"
Like they did with Microsoft?
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
The Ice Crushes You!
But SPAM is a business. Doing that in these uncertain economic times would be unAmerikan! We've rooted you out you commie fag! Report for reeducation at once!
No, it's here in the US where television watches YOU, if you have a V-chip.
How ya like dat?
Possibly justified hysteria aside, the subject of this thread is a prime example of a thing which provides two equally valid answers to a social question: is the umbrella of 'homeland security'--the name alone is nauseating--being used by the forces of vacuous greed in Washington to provide favors to large, commercial internet businesses, or is the simpler and better assumption that the Wonks in washington just dumb and prone to suggestion?
Before everyone with an I.Q. over ninety buys a plane ticket to Canada, we should consider what we're really dealing with in the U.S. government nowadays. It is easy for a Slashdot-quality mind to spot the sheer, arid uselessness of a ban on free 802.11 and this has got to make you wonder.
On the one hand, WE know that terrorists are far more concerned with keeping secrets than ordinary users are. WE fully understand that terrorists, spies and clever lunatics put real work into hiding their intentions and there are too many ways onto the internet to filter all of them--that is, at least, using any method we know of.
It's easy to imagine, a mind like John Ashcroft's simply bypassing this; you can almost see that sloping brow furrow horribly as it bypasses the obvious fact that terrorists have no need to reach for free radio Ethernet.
On the other hand, it is just as easy to conceive of the current administration's love for corporate power making it despise grass-roots initiatives to provide free internet fill-in-the-blank and ducking fast behind the poor, beleaguered flag at the first murmur of dissent.
Both answers are perfectly imaginable: It is easy to imagine genuine nastiness on the part of any government as piggy-eyed as the one we have right now. At the same time, the absence of a clue on the administration's part is just as credible an explanation.
To paraphrase the name of musical group, 'they might be midgets.'
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Our of curiosity, when someone does sit on your network for a few hours, uses some stolen credit cards, uses a script to hack into a few hundred systems, launches a distributed denial-of-service attack against a few government system, maybe sends out a bundle of spam, and the feds come knocking on your door, what do you plan on telling them?
All you need to do is to have a welcome HTML screen to your WiFi network that requires that users give you their name and verifyable e-mail address before they're allowed to roam. You don't have to give that info to the government unless they already have a good judge-approved reason to need it, but wouldn't you come running to the government yourself if you knew anybody connected with 9/11/01 used your bandwidth?
It's worse than that Jim...
So..... what's to stop young Aheeb from taking his iBook (because only pinko commu^?^?^?^?^? terrorists use Macs) to Starbucks, or any of the handful of airports that are offering 802.11 service to patrons? DEAR GOD WE'RE HELPING THEM AT THE AIRPORTS NOW! BRING THAT TRAVEL NETWORK TO A STOP!
This is utterly fscking re-goddamned-diculus. The next thing you know we'll have the great firewall of America. But remember, if you can't watch the superbowl comercials then the terrorists have already won. There's noting quite like the momentum generated by a buearuacrcy motivated to look good to keep it's money.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
I will be one of the first people to say that "freedom of speech" necessarily requires anonymity. People need to be able to speak their minds anonymously without fear of getting their words traced back.
But there is NO reason true anonymity needs to extend to your IP address. There are plenty of places in the physical world where you can post something anonymously (perhaps an op-ed piece in your local newspaper). There are HTTP anonymizing services that allow you to post comments on bulletin boards anonymously. Heck, most sites and most ISP accesses are anonymous to the extent that a court order would be needed to get your identity (well, excluding some of the Patriot Act provisions). That type of anonymity may be perfectly sufficient for some. For the rest, we already have those tools.
The point is, a completely anonymous Internet connection has a very limited usefuless for those hoping to protect their freedom of speech, but it has immense value for those wanting to commit electronic crimes (spamming, intrusions, distributed denial-of-service attacks, worm injections, identity fraud, etc.). By providing immunity to the Wi-Fi operators, we're basically saying it's perfectly OK for people to start abusing these networks without fear of ever getting caught.
If you thought spam and the occasional DDoS attack was bad today, just wait...
brendanoconnorwrote:
> If a person runs a service they are liable for
> what the users of the service do.
I have a private (as secured as it can be) wireless network, not a "service". Someone who breaks into it is a thief, not a "user". I'm not responsible for what criminals, who are stealing my property, do with it. That is ridiculous.
> A certain amount of privacy should be kept but
> not at the cost of life. If reading someone's
> email saves someones life, then it was worth the
> invasion of privacy.
The government knew at least some of the 911 terrorists were terrorists. INS gave them visas anyway, six months after the fact. No amount of reading emails or securing wireless networks would have prevented 911. Having INS pay attention to the FBI's watch list might have. Rather than dealing with that, they'd rather read our email, secure our wireless networks, and strip search cancer patients. When that doesn't work, we'll go to war with Iraq. Yes, America, the King of Terror hasn't only stolen your heart, he got your brain too!
The only people who stopped terrorists from doing damage on 911 were the courageous people of Flight 93. They didn't let their emails be read. They didn't secure their wireless networks. They, ordinary Americans, gave their lives to stop the terrorists hijacking their plane. Their sacrifice reveals the "save lives at the cost of liberty" position for what it is: a pile of stinky manure. Flinging our rights to the winds does not stop Terror, it enables that reign of Terror called "oppression".
The attack on America by the King of Terror did not begin with 911. The first front, fought and lost, was in our schools. Remember the warnings Slashdot gave then, the voices from the "hellmouth"? The King of Terror first stole the hearts of children, warping them to murder. America responded by turning our schools into prisons. Then he stole the hearts of people in the Muslem world, turning them into terrorists, forming Al Qaeda, attacking on 911. America lashed out in terror again, flinging her rights away. Then the King of Terror took your heart, America, turning it to oppression. Who is this King of Terror? Azi Dahaka, the Great Devil that comes from the sky!
It's not too late. The King of Terror can still be defeated and destroyed! How? Three great powers forge the sword, the heart, which can defeat him. On 911 the King of Terror claimed the deaths of thousands, the three powers saved tens of thousands! These are the three:
What secret only Wisdom knows?
Look to the wisdom of your founding fathers, America.
What weapon forged, Courage shows?
Flight 93 showed what the courage of your people can really do.
What power, Love when freed, greatest of all, can give?
Compassion, of course. Compassion can reach the heart of a lonely, resentful, troubled child before they bring a gun to school. Compassion brought countless people out of the WTC alive because a friend, a coworker, or a stranger helped them out. Compassion is Al Qaeda's bane. They may be able to deceive a naive kind person into donating to a charity that funnels money to them, but true compassion is too wise for them, and has no room for the hate Al Qaeda needs to thrive on.
"The last hope is to fight by ourselves...
Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power."
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Where is your journal? I would like to see it, and possibly contribute to it.
www.enthea.org
Now let's look at how they are getting there. This is what they have to say for themselves on their little page of horors. First You are not too small to matter. Good, the argument "no one is interested in the particulars of your mundane life so don't worry about security" is both false and misleading and is going to be killed. Lip service is given to user education but takes the form of consumer awareness of comercial products which won't work and will be filled with DRM.
What we need to do is take their message and run with it. Those parts that are true back free software. The government must be made aware that only free software is secure, that they must use it to protect themselves and should not stifle it. They have understood the scale of economic harm that can occur if things don't work right. You are aware of the raid the White House ordered on ptech
and worried in part that ptech had put in backdoors?
The company's software code was checked by the government to determine if outsiders could read or steal any sensitive data from the government, or embed the code with something destructive, officials said. Those checks began months ago, when the probe of Ptech started.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
When NYC make it nigh-impossible for cancer patients to travel the subway, slashdiots line up to tell the cencer patients it's their own damn fault.
When the Bush administration proposes taking away wireless networks - oh the outrage, oh the humanity.
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.
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Here's a comment that find incredibly insightful and relevant from here and here as posted by circletimessquare.
;-P
QUOTE
1) DENIAL
"September 11th doesn't really change anything."
2) ANGER
"John Ashcroft is an asshole!"
3) BARGAINING
"They might do this or that, but we can always march and petition and campaign!"
4) DEPRESSION
"I'm ashamed to be an American."
5) ACCEPTANCE
"I guess, after all, Islamic Fundamentalism really is the enemy."
As soon as this person made the issue America, they lost their own argument.
Dude, blood is on the hands of every nation on earth. Hypocrisy is equal opportunity.
Does America suck big time on some issues? Sure. No one is denying the obvious criticisms you have pointed out.
But surely you can see that America has more freedoms when it comes to the press, speech, etc., than China, for example, which actively seeks to control these things. Or Pakistan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Does this make America better than China or these other nations? Of course not. That is just nationalism. Nationalism stinks like racism or sexism stinks. So maybe we, and this includes you, can move beyond the America sucks/ America is better rhetoric and focus on the issues at hand: basic freedoms, regardless of where in the world we are.
Because no one else is talking about these issues in this thread as an "America is better" or "America is worse" kind of way except you. Who cares about that. Iraq is pursuing WMD. That sucks. All by itself that sucks. Whether America is the center of all evil in the universe or all Americans walk around with haloes of purity and innocence on their heads. Either way, this Iraqi prusuit of WMD still sucks. Period. End of story. Get it?
So I'll make you a deal: we'll move beyond the nationalist rhetoric as soon as YOU move beyond the nationalist rhetoric, capice?
Geez.
ENDQUOTE
Not trying to karma whore, but if I post anonymously, it's likely a lot of people won't see it. I can honestly say I've seen myself go through this after September 11, 2001.
I've been saying this for months: if you run a wide-open AP, with the full knowledge that you are providing anonymous connectivity to others, you should not be surprised when someone uses that open AP to perform an illegal act, and the feds trace that act back to you.
/., not a dissertation committee!)
It seems to me there are two methods of dealing with this sort of vulnerability. I will treat them as opposing and competing philosphies, for reasons that will become clear, but in practice both are often used.
1) You can move in the direction of giving the actor minimal power while requiring minimal accountability. Let anyone in on your network, even anonymously, they can futz around all they want, but they simply don't have the required privileges to damage your well-protected system. This is essentially the principle behind the Java sandbox, and behind the anonymous user account on a Unix system.
2) You can give the actor maximal power while requiring maximal accountability. Every move must be authenticated and recorded, however once given access the agent has the ability to manipulate and potentially damage the system from within. This is essentially the principle behind ActiveX.
Usually on a given network you will see some kind of combination of the two methodologies, encryption, permissions, access lists, antiviral programs, all working along various stages in the chain of communications to prevent damage by a hostile actor. However, despite these cooperative methods, I believe the two methods are fundamentally at odds with each other at a deep philosophical level. At their essentials, they boil down to Raymond's Cathedral and Bazaar. The Cathedral stands for maximal power for the actor. Here the Government strives to keep track of users and access points, and shuts down any unauthorized (anonymous) use. It restricting to itself the ultimate authority over who has the right to penetrate your system. (In this scenario the Government always mantains super-Superuser status for itself.) This requires you to trust your Leaders as infallible. The problem is, as we saw with that recent Active X debacle, once we have decided to "trust" someone, they now have the power to damage us, and particularly if it is a super-trusted authority, e.g. the government or Microsoft, the entire security method can be instantly rendered worthless.
The "Bazaar," or minimal power method, which builds security into the system from the outset by not allowing rogue processes any ability to compromise operation, is harder to implement, and rather unpalatable to the Government since even it can't escape the sandbox, but in the end it affords better protection for everyone because if any given user is compromised, that user can only damage him or hserself. In practice, of course, even a sandbox-type system can be vulnerable to exploits such as buffer overflows, but this is where open source shows its superiority, anyone has the ability to fix their own machine if so inclined, and indeed to pass such fixes along to be utilized and scrutinized by the community.
(Regarding the above, I tried to organize my thoughts since I had a lot of competing ideas going on in my own mental bazaar, but I fear I wasn't entirely successful in these few minutes. Sorry for any lingering incoherences, but hell, this is
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
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.
Observing first your elections then the present state of your government from this far land beneath the trees, I was left with some impressions:
a) Gore is far more educated than Bush, yet far dumber. How little backbone one must have to bow the way he did to conservative media and movers and throw away his last, best chance to win, namely the extremely charming, intelligent and popular president Clinton?
b) From right and left (or Republican and Democrat) does not follow tough and soft. During the last century most American wars were fought by Democrat presidents.
c) Hilary C. looks far tougher than both Bush and Gore. That would kill many rabbits at the same time: a woman, a wife who managed to keep a publicly difficult marriage, someone who could truthfully promisse to keep (or restore) internal freedoms and make war to terrorists. I think this scenario is pretty strong.
d) A sitting president won't lose an election if there is a war abroad. So all Bush has to do, and he has plenty of opportunity, is to produce a major war or crisis (Iraq, Sysria, Iran, Korea etc) near the elections.
I mostly agree with you. However, I believe that if you have a network that contains sensitive data, it should be secured in the first place. I made a lame joke trying to point out that this really is not about "My Rights Online". It seems that according to almighty slashdot, that somehow This has a thing to do with "My Rights Online". If the U.S. Federal Govt. ever tries to filter or block out "questionable material" (sites on Islam, etc...), then I will consider it "My Rights Online". I do think we need more public scrutiny of the HSD, especially when it consolidates what, 30 or so previous departments. But then again, the general public really dosen't seem to care. I mean we live in a society where lawmakers can actually vote themselves a pay raise. Wow, thats one ramblin' rant.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Wow, some of you must have a hard time walking with your knees jerking so violently. I know that we've all decided that President Bush and every last person in the US Government are now minions of the Antichrist who think nothing of trampling the rights of every American, biting the heads off cute furry animals, and beating up old ladies on the street just for fun. But you should at least try and retain the appearance of rational thought.
How many articles have we already had on Slashdot lamenting how hard it is to properly secure a WiFi network? Why is it horrible when the Feds point out something that we already know? How is it a sign of the End Times for the gov't to advocate good security practices? If they'd said "Gee, guys, the root logins on your main servers really should have passwords" would we have people unsecuring their boxes in protest?
The article is vague and badly written, and we have no real context for any of the quotes they include. (Hell, no one they quote uses the word "terrorist" at all.) However, it's fairly clear from their analogy to the phone system that they're talking about big corporations, ISPs and big network providers. These are buinesses that already have a legal responsibility to secure their networks properly, and some of them have already shown that they either can't do it with current technology, don't care enough to bother, or just don't know how to do it right.
This is not an attack on people or businesses who want to operate open access points. But that decision should be a positive choice, not an accident or a consquence of someone bypassing bad default security settings. And when that choice is made it needs to consider the security of other data on the network, like confidental customer information, that obviously should not be open to every random person with an 802.11 card.
But nevermind all that. Let's go back to babbling about the imminent arrival of a police state and demonzing people on the basis of inflammatory Slashdot postings. That's ever so much more productive.
I have a private (as secured as it can be) wireless network, not a "service". Someone who breaks into it is a thief, not a "user".
You are not the problem. Carry on.
It's unbelievable the magnitude of stupidity shown by those entrusted with providing our security. Regardless of the subject, you don't fix large security problems by starting with the inconsequential nit-pick details! It'd be like worrying that a burglar could enter your home because they might kick down the door when in fact every window of your house has no lock. The 9/11 tradedy itself solved our air travel security problem. No hijacker will ever again obtain control of an airliner simply for the fact that the passengers and crew will not allow it. Gone is the assumption that a hijacker just wants a large ransom or political favor. Problem solved. We didn't need strip searches and confiscation of nail files.
Trying to regulate, monitor and secure communications channels is absolutely the most useless way to "fight terrorism" -- not to mention it's not even remotely possible in an open and free society. What we really need is an "open source" style audit of our national infrastructure by ordinary Americans who work daily in their areas of expertise. We need simple ingenuity to fix any holes that may exist.
What about suicide? The criminal and the victim are one and the same. The state intervenes: you must not kill yourself. Police state, or state of mandatory benevolence?
There are two major viewpoints to this argument.
One is that the suicidal (barring the terminally ill, of course) are mentally unfit to make such a decision for themselves, and so they need someone else to protect them until they are stable again.
I personally believe that suicide should be legal. IMO your body is yours to do with as you please - even to make incredibly poor decisions regarding - as long as you don't hurt/endanger other people in the process.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Our of curiosity, when someone does sit on your network for a few hours, uses some stolen credit cards, uses a script to hack into a few hundred systems, launches a distributed denial-of-service attack against a few government system, maybe sends out a bundle of spam, and the feds come knocking on your door, what do you plan on telling them?
I plan on telling them that I'm no more liable than the phone company is for allowing them to make phone calls. It's called the "Common Carrier" principle, and I think it applies here.
I mean, if you hold me liable for what somebody else does through my bandwidth then you'll have to lock down every public library, Starbucks, Internet cafe and airport where they let you browse the web for free or a small cash donation. Network availability is becoming ubiquitous through a variety of technologies. Regulating 802.11 doesn't prevent people from getting on the network, it just kills 802.11.
Securing the network from "bad people" isn't really an option any more than securing the phone system is. Do you want to get rid of pay phones too?
This
All you need to do is to have a welcome HTML screen to your WiFi network that requires that users give you their name and verifyable e-mail address before they're allowed to roam.
I foresee a lot of foo@hotmail.com accounts showing up in my logs. Really, there's no good way to track people without demanding a credit card or proof of identity.
Hell's going to get real cold before I demand a driver's license to use my school's computer labs. The same goes for the library computers and my home network.
This
is helping the terrorists too... they just let anyone come in and purchase food. Those terrorists couldn't have made it to the planes if they had starved first! This will end terrorism because terrorists are too stupid to buy an AOL account!!!
This statement by the Dept. of Homeland Security was probably funded by AOL/Verizon/etc.
Karma Clown
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.
It doesn't apply here. You can't just say, "I'm providing a service, so make me a common carrier." The phone company bit is a horrible example, because you cannot merely make a telephone call and hack into other systems, send a million spam messages, or command your DDoS zombie army. You'd have to have an ISP in there somewhere to get you online. The telephone call is merely the "physical" layer of your network connection. For the rest of your examples, you're still not getting free anonymous access. For your library, you generally need a library card, and even if you don't, people saw you. They can trace the activity back to the PC, and a librarian or a visitor could easily say, "Yep, I remember him." Many libraries also generally permit only web browsing. If you set up a Wi-Fi network and put it in a DMZ and only permit proxied (filtered?) HTTP traffic, I'd say that's a responsibly-run Wi-Fi network, though I still might have my reservations about running one. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? It's about truly anonymous, full IP connectivity. That is not generally found in a library. For Starbucks, you have to sign up with an account, which requires a credit card. Even if you used stolen information, somebody probably saw you sit down, assuming you didn't buy any coffee. For an Internet Café, same thing. You had to pay to use the service, so you either spoke to a vendor, and/or they have your credit card. I also don't know how many of these places offer you full IP connectivity as well. I would think most of these would be heavily firewalled and proxied also. In an airport, first of all, you've bought a ticket. Secondly, I don't know of any "all-airport" networks that do not require you to sign up with an account. Thirdly, for those airline clubs that do offer "free" Wi-Fi access, you had to walk in and demonstrate that you were a member. They've noted this. There is presently nothing similar to open Wi-Fi networks in providing 100% anonymous full IP connectivity. When they do knock on your door, and they've stated that they've traced all sorts of illegal activity back to your network, and you do simply state "I'm no more liable than the phone company is!" what do you think they will do? Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh damn, better luck next time"? If what you're advocating (immunity to open Wi-Fi operators) comes to pass, crime on the Internet will skyrocket. Spam will multiply by orders of magnitude (now they have no fear of being caught, and it would only be you that's shut down). Is this the Internet of the future? You're also forgetting that you are ultimately responsible for fulfilling the obligations of your terms of service with your ISP. You can call yourself a "common carrier" all you want, but you're still contractually bound there. If your ISP gets enough complaints, you can bet they will shut you down. You can scream and shout about how it was some other armless guy using your open, anonymous Wi-Fi network all you want, but it doesn't really matter. You failed to curb the abuse (because you made the deliberate decision to open your network up promiscuously).
You want me to hire someone to fix other people's networks so that they can't be hacked and used to DDOS me?
Yeah, that makes sense...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
OK, so my organization is going to be regulated because we use 802.11? What about Internet Explorer? With a weekly security flaw found in the world's most popular browser; shouldn't the feds regulate the development and deployment of such a widely used bit of software? It seems there are many more opportunities to commandeer a machine via IE than 802.11.
-ted
we used to be able to freely have "open" networks running. Now they are offenses that are illegal b/c they harbor terrorists.
That's not freedom.
If I use security measures (such as encrypting all my traffic) I have something to hide, and must be a terrorist. If I don't, I am allowing others to use my network, so I must be a terrorist.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
I've lived over a lot of the US. I've yet to find anywhere that people consistantly follow the speed limits. Costal places are nuts, big cities are nuts, the midwest is nuts (ever been in KC at rush hour?), rural roads are nuts. I've not been out west much.. maybe that is where all the people are that follow the speed laws. :)
.001% of people that are shitheads. It won't protect you (as the shitheads just move on to better toys) and it screws everyone else over.
My vehicle didn't have to meet any standards. It's a total POS. I just took it to a mechanic I knew would pass it as being okay. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
There is a difference between an open network and an insecure network. I might leave all the doors open for people to use my web servers, proxy server, use me as a gateway, etc but I've never been hacked by anyone and doubt I ever will be.
I have every right not to have my network usage tracked and so does everyone else. You can't punish everyone for the
Windows sucks. I'd never run it inside any trusted part of my network. For me I always distrust any machines running non-free OS's or any machines I haven't configured myself. Hell I even distrust myself (I tweaked my boxes so I can't logon as root when buzzed).
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Seriously. Any 911 center admin who does that deserves to be shot.
So basically you're saying we should have instead elected the fascist bastard who was running against Davis, right?
Davis was Lieutenant Governor long before he was Governor. In addition, he had to qualify for his own party's primary against another democratic challenger, before going on to the November election against a slate of challengers, including Independent, Green, and Reform party candidates. Unless every person he's ever run against was a facist bastard, voters have had many a chance to pick a different candidate.
Yup, and there are plenty of places that are selling anonymous connectivity, both in the US and overseas. AOL, for example.
Besides, there are plenty of ways in which terrorists can get other people's credit card numbers.
Secondly, an open Wi-Fi network is a perfect place to release a destructive virus or worm. You don't need a lot of bandwidth to do this.
No more or less perfect than any other Internet connection.
If someone hops on an access point with a localhost IP, the packets that leave/enter the account are going to be tagged with the access point's IP... and if the owner says "I created an open access point, I have no idea who used it", the owner doesn't get off the hook in a civil lawsuit this would be a response to.
That's what pushing liability back onto the responsible party means.
What I'm calling for is liability law applied to cyberspace, not just for open access 802.11(whatever), but for everybody. Starting with the idiots with cablemodems, no firewalls, and 0wN3d computers.
Tech Public Policy stuff
You know what? No great loss. Yep. That's right. It'd be like 1988 when almost nobody had net access. I was a courrier back then. There were signs all over the place that said "FAX It!" because that was a hot new thing back then. We routinely made pickups of mag-tapes to deliver to computer centers. You know the old bit about never underestimating the bandwidth of a truckload of CD-ROMs? Well, never underestimate the bandwidth of a college drop-out making a run with a cardboard box full of mag-tapes.
Now, of course we are a lot more dependant on the 'net these days and some things would get disrupted. But GET REAL. Very little data would be lost because it's backed up... much of it still to tape. Some businesses like Amazon would "lose" a lot of sales, but the bottom line is that Junior will still get his socks and that copy of "Harry Potter and the Delayed Puberty" for Christmas. It just might be late, that's all.
Making the Internet a national security issue is like making Showtime, Playboy and the Home Shopping Club cable channels a national security issue.
When I was a dialup tech we used to make fun of people with no backup ISP who said "my business depends on the internet". The idea of someone depending on just one ISP was funny, but the idea of depending on the Internet was funny too.
Now, I seriously doubt that someone logging onto the net--through 802.11 or otherwise--could bring it all down. Even if they could, the outtage wouldn't last long. This is big business now, and you know the problem would be isolated in hours. In the meantime, as Scott Adams said "the network is down, but everybody else is happy".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
Excuse me? Have ever even left America before? I am sick and tired of Americans falsely believing that they have the most freedom in the world. You don't, in fact you have one of the places with the most loss of freedom in the past decade. Where on Earth did you get that misguided notion? Honestly, you are a terrible advert for your country.
What can you do that we can't? The rest of the world isn't "IN SOVIET RUSSIA..." you know. You want a free society, take a look at Europe. We're even allowed to teach about evolution in schools here...
(sorry if I've offended anyone, but this dumbass had to be set straight)
For some reason, I just don't buy into the whole "Terrorists want to bring down the internet." bullshit. I tend to think these types of morons would much prefer strapping a bomb to themselves. They would probably just look like a bunch of punk kids if they actually tried to bring down the internet. Afterall, it's all about image if you're a terrorist...
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
The Feds are now claiming that communications per se are terrorism or tools terrorists can use. Well, yes, terrorists as well as everyone else can use the telephone, the mails, wired networks and wireless networks. So what? It is the interest of all of us that the ease of communication and the ability to communicate without Sammy peering into our thoughts as we do so, be preserved and increased. That some will communicate what we would rather did not exist does not mean that you threaten communication channels as such or invite Sammy to examine and control each and every packet.
Here we have Homeland [In]Security showing their true colors. "If you don't do what we want then we will regulate you (i.e. use the force of arms) you into non-existence or until we don't feel at all uneasy, or until or corporate sponsors don't feel you are a threat to their monopolies." Thanks, Sammy, for being so clear.
Of course the "telecomm" industry was represented. These positions came straight out of and are in the interest of big telecomm. They have at last found a toe-hold to get the State (Heil Bush) to kill off or threaten free-range competitors.
Isn't it interesting that Homeland Security is threatening WiFi, especially the relatively free and open networks, but not threatening known ultra-vulnerable OSes like those of MicroSloth?
If someone cracks your home network then exactly how is that a threat to national security per se? Exactly what are they going to do with the average homeowner machine and set-up? DDOS attacks are about it. But those machines are easy enough to attack when wired. Ask the FBI. They brag of the ability to install key-loggers on most any machine on the Net today.
This is such a canard. Everyone with a bit of sense knows that almost the entire infrastructure of predominantly Microsoft running machines is quite vulnerable. Whether it is conneced wirelessly or not changes little. The only purposes of this threat are to float a trial baloon giving Homeland Security larger powers and authority than it ever should have, to test the level of the opposition to such moves and to increase the monopoly powers of Big Telecomm.
When PGP was invented, the laws were pre-existing. Zimmerman et all went out of their way to challenge these laws and their application of sofware.
I've been exchanging encrypted email with friends and co-workers for many, many years now. Nothing "has happened to us".Face it, the government really doesn't give a damn what the average American citizen does or thinks, or what the citizens communicate to other citizens.
Some big corporations care, but only to the extent that your actions impede their efforts to turn a profit.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Common carrier is not something you can call yourself with impunity. You must ACT as one. Do you filter your network traffic, and offer your network (and not just wireless) to anyone as you please?
Was anyone besides myself foolish enough to print this thing out before scrolling through it?
I just killed a small wooded lot.
Just a thought, next time George and the boys offer up something this important, they really should think about making it a PDF and or gzip it.