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
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?
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.
can bring down the network of this country very quickly once they are on the network. Tell me, what is to prevent anybody from just signing up the NETWORK with the AOL cds?
Give me a break, goddamn it. Shutting down WiFi security holes will prevent intruders from going on the NETWORK?
I can understand if this is to prevent government agencies or companies with knowledge of government secrets from having wide open WiFi, but for EVERYONE?
Land of the free, just a thought.
geek page at KY speaks
only terrorists use wireless Internet
No, the problem is only Campaign funders run cable networks, wireless is a competitor that is cheap to set up, impossible to control, and very useful. Like the old BBS's, or peer to peer.
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
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;
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 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".
That's not what the article says. It points out that wireless insecurities, particularly on corporate networks, pose a security threat -- no surprise there.
Because of all the hoopla about homeland security, people are pointing out that *any* insecurity that allows people to access networks in unauthorized ways can be a vector for Bad People who want to do Bad Things.
The same could be said about critical security problems in networked computers that may be exploited to attack critical networks. I'm sure that federal cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke would say that any insecurity that enables unauthorized network access *may* be a national security threat.
It doesn't say that you can't have a home or office wifi network. It doesn't even say that freely available wifi is a tool of the terrorists. It says, that systems should be secured, and that responsibility lies at many levels (manufacturers, corporate users, etc).
This isn't to say that the government doesn't engage in FUD or that civil rights aren't under attack. But it makes mare sense to fight the real threats to individual liberties.
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.
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!
Better laws would mandate that servers be patched and such.
No No No, there is no need for laws; there is no need for regulation. There is no need for any of that; if you want a secure network, HIRE someone to do it or do it yourself. Everyone is always running off at the mouth with make this law, forge this law. Law, law, law for the most stupid bullshit. Our legal system is already filled with enough bullshit.
Slashdot is for geeks, but you forgot:
Sex!
Breed terrorist, breed!
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
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
Beg pardon comrade, but according to The Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary the correct form would be "doubleplusungood" .
As in:
reporting bb minitrue doubleplusungood refs wifi slashdot unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
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."
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable [...]
Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I agree with you up to the point where you brought in the tried and tired Big Brother rhetoric of the unhealthily paranoid.
"Homeland Security" does want to create a situation where everything is traceable, and they wouldn't be able to do it, if it wasn't for the fact that they could bully ISPs and telcos into compliance. The Internet protocols in place don't allow for normal traffic to be very traceable if you don't want it to. At the very worst, you find out what ISP somebody got access through, but the ISP refuses to say anything.
Now "Homeland Security" wants to bully all open WiFi ports into closing because of the hypothetical premise that a 'terrorist' could use the open APs to anonymously conduct terrorist business online. And that's true - but guess what, it's just as easy to splice a few wires in the right locations to get the same access, only wired. Or they could splice and then put on an AP and homebrew their comm links.
This is doing nothing except regulating a new useful technology before it even gets off the ground. I'm pissed - I want WiFi to become ubiquitous, but not with the hand of "Homeland Security" on its shoulder. What bullocks!
Note to feds: hands off my technology. If you want to touch it, you'd better be prepared to show me a search warrant.
Unfortunately, they don't even need a search warrant anymore, under these new bills. *sigh*
I'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?
- 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.
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
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.
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.
My local supermarket has a payphone out front. We need to hold the supermarket liable as a facillitator of any drug deals made over that phone. Don't forget to hold Home Depot liable for murder when someone gets bashed in the head with a brick.
Jeez, and your post got a 5?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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?!
San fransisco, Seattle, New York, Atlanta, Adelaide, Sydney, London, Rotterdam, And more
So how long before skateboarding is a crime?
"One of the many ways terrorists and their cells/hierarchy communicate is through the net "
You don't know who terrorists are until after they commit the crime.
Those 9/11 terrorists had access to telephones, internet and everything else, none of them needed to use open Wifi.
If anything, Arabs driving around with a scanner looking for an open WiFi connection would have alerted the authorities to a problem!
Notice they specifically go after Open WiFi, but they could have gone after free ISPs or Internet PayPhones.
(In Europe there are Internet public payphones, so I assume the US has them too.)
Nobody (outside of China) has gone after Internet Cafe's, nobody has even mentioned public Internet Payphones, only WiFi.
So this must be a commercial agenda aimed at closing Open WiFi connections.
Gotta be that COMETA consortium pushing this drivel.
Why not the department of Domestic Security? The word is even in the preamble to the constitution - "... insure domestic tranquility..."
/. readers who are not students of history or may be too young to remember.) The first Gulf War? Not about 'freeing Kuwaitis', but about oil. Why are we going after Iraq? It has nothing to do with terrorism or security. (If the administration were really worried about who potentially has a nuclear weapon, we would be going after North Korea which has stated that it has a nuclear weapons program. And they're part of the spun-for-bloodlust-creating Axis Of Evil. Remember that one kiddies?)
I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy. The people who came up with "Homeland" did a lot of research. Probably even more research than is put into the search for a new business names. There were probably psychologists and sociologists and focus groups - sworn to secrecy of course. "Domestic" sounds sterile and abstract, although entirely accurate. "Homeland" is a middle-america, bread-basket term. "Keep the home fires burning", "gotta protect the 'home'". "Fatherland" would have pissed off the women - besides it's already been taken. Also remember that this was aimed at the average sixth grade level of the population.
Just like you said, we americans don't have a "homeland". That's a term for a place where the people have lived continuously for many, many centuries. I don't think the two centuries we have been here counts. And besides, this is the "homeland" of the indigenous peoples who were here for centuries before we arrived\invaded\committed genocide on the previous inhabitants. I don't feel comfortable calling them "indians" as that name came from a navigational\perception error and "native americans" is another term imposed by the conquering people. Why should people already here name themselves after Amerigo Vespucci, a spanish invader?
And before I get people observing that domestic security doesn't cover those americans who might reside in another country, homeland doesn't cover it either. There may be a better description to include that, but I'm sure that those who made the decision were not nearly as concerned about accuracy as they were about spin.
The phrase "Homeland Security" pisses me off. The way Dubya says 'nuk-u-lur' pisses me off. (Actually I'm embarrassed for my country every time I hear him say it incorrectly)And the references to a (permanent - see George Orwell's 1984) "War on Terrorism" piss me off. The attacks on 9/11 were not a declaration of war, only countries can do that. They were criminal acts perpetrated by and organized group. We have plenty of laws, both domestic (RICO, etc.) and international that cover that. But to call it a criminal act and hunt down the conspirators would not have furthered the administrations agenda of restricting the constitutional rights of americans and making the middle east safe for an american pipeline to bring oil from the Balkans to the Atlantic. Is there anyone still naive enough to think that this is not about oil and american imperialism? When will we stop letting our leaders do this to us? Actually there is a really good article here about why we buy it and do it to ourselves. It talks about the 'strict father' mode of communication (Obediance to authority - Conservative\Bush) vs. the 'nurturant parent' mode (Empathy and helping others -Progressive\Clinton, for example) and how they drive the american psyche. It's worth a read.
The actions in Korea and Viet Nam were not about human rights or freeing people, they were about industry and furthering a political agenda - wiping out 'communism'. The equivalent of an ideological pissing contest. (This info for the benefit of
Nope, Iraq is all about oil and Daddy's wounded pride. In addition to having the one of the worlds largest reserves of oil, it's the next place where we need to put a pipeline. And don't forget that Saddam put out a contract on George Bush the first. And that Bush the first took a lot of heat about not going on into Baghdad and Removing Saddam. He took the heat even though the greatest minds of the time said it was better for middle east and world stability to leave him there.
The U.S. action with the U.N. in Bosnia and Kosovo were primarily humanitarian actions. And under whose administration did they take place? Yup, Clinton. If there had been a republican administration in power at that time, we would not have helped. Bosnia and Kosovo have no oil or natural resources that american companies can make a profit from. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Republican administrations go to war for business and political interests, Democrats go to war for humanitarian interests. Personally, I know which one I prefer - if it has to happen at all.
I'm sorry if this has been a rant and off-topic (sort-of), but I just had to vent. Mod me down if you must, but engage me in discussion if you can. That is the very essence of our freedom.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
How many people here even know how their own representaives voted on Homeland Security? For the record, here is the official list of who in Congress voted for and against the creation of Homeland Security:
House Roll Call
Senate Roll Call
(Interesting note, Senator Hollywood voted against. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.)
Is your senator in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your senator expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. (Not their federal office, snail mail doesn't get through there any more due to extended antrax checks.) They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
Is your congressman in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your congressman expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
But what if they did vote the way you wanted them to? WRITE THEM A LETTER OF THANK YOU! Everyone likes positive feedback from the people who control their job. If your senator was one of the nine dissenters, thank them for standing up for what is right! Include with the snail mail letter a check (not cash) for $100 to their campaign fund. Polticians speak two languages; votes and money. Speak your mind in both, in enough numbers, and they WILL listen.
While you're at it, write a short OpEd for the local newspaper. Short, sweet, to the point. Maybe they'll publish it, maybe they won't, but they definitely won't if you don't send it.
This is a democracy. Your government SPEAKS FOR YOU! Your representatives represent YOU. Remind them of it. Daily. Make them scared shitless of losing their job if they cross you. Their first thought when they wake up should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" Their last thought before going to bed should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" As a voter, it is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that those who claim to represent you actually do.
250,000 Slashdot voters is 500 times the difference in Florida in 2000, for a Presidential election. Imagine the sheer power of that electorate in congressional elections, if only it would get up off its collective ass and do something.
The Patriot Act of 2001 labels many so-called computer crimes "terrorism." I openly state, I am a terrorist. I seek to instill terror in the hearts of my government of trampling on my freedoms, or of voting against my will. I seek to make my government live in fear of me and my power over them. I seek to give George W. Bush nightmares of crossing me.
I am a voter. Are you?
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
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.
First of all, the single target of 'liberals' is pretty darn close minded of you. Second, the government really is doing a bunch of horrible things (detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?). Third, what do you think "we're going to start regulating" means? If you don't do it their way you will be told to change it or they will shut you down.. that's how regulations work ya know.
/that's/ the reason behind the use of 'terrorist' and other such buzzwords. Who on earth would want to disagree with a bill that would get past if it labels them as someone who's pro-terrorist?
The government is doing it's damndest to whip people into a patriotic fever so that they willingly give up their rights and not appear to be 'taking' them -
Patriot Act allows the government to detain people without legal counsel, without being accused of an actual crime, and many other things that go completely opposite of everything this country has tried to be so far to date. And lets not forget the Citizen Corps, where the government sets up tip hotlines for people to call in their neighbors for suspected dangerous activities.
You're right: 'homeland security' in the sense of the ability to protect our nation from threats (internal or external) is important, but at what point does it stop being a free state and start being some quasi fascist state? Mail is mail is mail. It's against the law for them to open a piece of snail-mail sent to someone unless they have good cause to do it (and good cause is not 'hey this guy has a middle eastern last name - lets check up on him'), so why the fuck should email be any different?
Honestly the answer to that one is simple: because they can and no one will know it. Sniffing packets and logging traffic is a lot easier than searching through mail without making it look tampered - that doesn't make it any less a piece of mail that is personal and NOT something they should stick their nose in without some damn good reason.
Anyway, there's my counter rant and not really meant to be a flame aside from the first paragraph.
Don't think it's just America that's gone to pot.
:-)
This is happening everywhere where there are politicians, because the Internet and all computing and advances in communications are undermining the power that governments once had in being able to monitor and control their subjugate populations. The idiocy which you see is a response to their belated realization of the new freedoms which people have acquired over the last few years, their panicked attempt to regain control. All the bogeymen are being deployed, "Stop Terrorism", "Protect the Children", even "Safeguard your Culture" in many places.
So, since the highest level of security is so important to them, comply: use the strongest encryption possible, everywhere. This will of course also make your systems unbreachable and unmonitorable by them as well. Oh dear.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
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.
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
Yeah, it will be the network's fault. And since there are no uses for a non-regulated network, it's obvious that such a person is guilty of not only facilitating terrorism, but perhaps supporting it.
Now that I think of it, there's another person running an insecure network: The Postmaster General. Yeah, terrorists could send letters to each other and, if the USPS doesn't open, read, and monitor them, the Postmaster is just running an insecure network that could bring about more havoc and terrorism. I say that we've got to lock up that Postmaster person and save ourselves. Who needs the mail anyway?
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
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.
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 ----
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.
If they're running IE (or a browser built on the IE engine), all you need is some useful binaries squirreled away on a webserver to do whatever you want with their computer. Security settings are almost always such that you can run untrusted EXEs. At Comdex, I ran PuTTY off of my home webserver so I could check my mail. There's no reason I couldn't have stashed some malware ahead of time and run that.
(Mozilla, OTOH, won't let you do that. It'll prompt you to save the file someplace. If "Run...", "Command Prompt", and IE are removed from the Start menu and Windows-R is trapped (it's a keyboard shortcut for Start|Run...), good luck getting your downloaded file to run...assuming that you can find a directory that'll let you save your file. (One college lab had "Run..." and "Command Prompt" removed from its machines, but opening IE and giving c:\winnt\system32\cmd.exe as the URL gave me a command prompt.))
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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.
A yard or radio waves are different than an object. They are something that is just there. Grabbing them and claiming it doesn't mean you or anyone made them. A car, food, your cat, etc are objects. The first two you can own and as always the cat owns you.
;)
:)
Most people are shortsighted greedy morons who wouldn't know the difference between their arse and their brain. Y'know the people who read tabloid newspapers and think all thats tuff is real. Land is an unlimited resource. At least as far as humans are likely to be concerned. There is more land on this one planet than is actually usable by the number of people the planet can sustain. Then there are lots of other planets we have the power to go to if we wanted to bother. Also we could easily create more 'land' by building large underwater or floating cities. Land is not an object so it is owned by the public.
Just because something belongs to the public doesn't mean you can't use it. It just means you can't deny others the use of it when your not using it. Y'know like a King that would punish peasents for killing a deer in his forest despite the fact he wasn't using the deer or the forest.
You and I are certainly not responsible for what our ancestors did but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for whatever actions we take that support what our ancestors did. Of course we have to have a place to live but you don't hafta put brick walls around your yard and curse the damn kids for their frisbees that float inside the fence.
Try not paying your taxes and see how public your land is. Your purchase price is little more than a rent deposit. Of course the only reason you have to pay for land is because people don't realize that if they felt like it they could just take what they needed from all that empty land not being used. A large enough group can take anything. No surprise about that. Forty big bikers with semiautomatic weapons can camp in my living room any damn time they want.
What are you not yet using your yard for that it'd be damaged by a child running across your grass?
Sure kids can play in their yard, a public park, etc. It doesn't mean I'm gonna get pissed off if they walk across my yard. I guess it's a reasonable use thing. If they aren't hurting me or damaging anything I'm using then I don't care if they use it.
You must have grown up somewhere nice. Where I grew up everyone played in the street. It was the only space big enough for most games and close enough to home that our parents didn't have to worry about gang fights, drug pushers, etc.
Anyway I think the original point was that it'd be silly to blame someone for not fencing their yard against criminal/terrorist activity. In the same way it's silly to blame someone for not fencing off their wireless network against criminal/terrorist activity. You shouldn't have to fence off either if it pleases you to leave them open.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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.