Slashdot Mirror
More on Cisco Building Surveillance into Routers
An anonymous reader writes "The company recently published a proposal that describes how it plans to embed 'lawful interception' capability into its products. Among the highlights: Eavesdropping 'must be undetectable,' and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another. If an Internet provider uses encryption to preserve its customers' privacy and has access to the encryption keys, it must turn over the intercepted communications to police in a descrambled form." See our earlier story and the RFC for background.
will they implement the evil bit?
Looks like just another opportunity to have our rights violated. I'm sure the Department of Homeland Insecurity is thrilled about this. Is this what Cisco means by "Empowering the Internet Generation"?
If you encrypt everything yourself, there's not much they can do about it, now is there?
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
As it says though, don't blame Cisco. If they didn't do it, sure as shootin' someone else would. Blame Ashcroft. Hopefully Cisco will find a way to build auditing tools into this to help promote responsible use.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
Is it just me, or is this another great reason to buy cheaper, better network equipment from someone else? If I were running Cisco, I would be a little more concerned with the market share being sucked up by newer companies than with adding the cost of undetectable snooping to the product line.
Now I certainly feel justified in moving my company off of Cisco's overpriced products.
Bummer...
im sure it will be propriorty like everything else they do so noone will be able to use it anyway. God knows they have never read a RFC
Cisco is just being an upstanding and Patriotic American(TM) under the all-American DMCA, CTEA, and PATRIOT Acts, lawfully passed by the Congress Corporation, and signed into American Best-Practices by Chairman Bush.
"Privacy is dead. Get over it." - Scott McNealy
"The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
Like I'd ever hand over my encryption keys to my ISP.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
If this is true, and Cisco does go forward with this, I will be sure not to buy anything Cisco. I will have to look for other devices to preform what is needed. Yeah, Cisco wont hurt by me not buying them, but if the word spreads, and people boycott Cisco for doing this, im sure they will change their mind unless Big Brother is giving them funds/tax breaks/whatever to get them to do this.
So what happens when a black hat gets in?
Answer: a completely open router that acts like none of his packets have the "evil bit" set.
Really, this is starting to worry me. If it's all undetectable, and is built in, how is this different from the telescreens in 1984? Big Brother is reading your packets!
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
I guess i can understand why Cisco is opting to build these types of technologies into their equipment, given the current U.S. political climate. But what about all the other nations of the planet that aren't reverting to McCarthy'ism? Will Cisco still be exporting non-backdoor-compliant hardware as well?
This doesn't seem to be that big a deal to me. If you're passing large amounts of data around that would attract the attention of people who could get a lawful intercept warrant, then I would assume you are smart enough to use SSH, IPSec, or some other similar secure communications technology that renders the capability of this system useless. I smell an attempt to get a law mandating that ISPs upgrade to this equipment, meaning they'll have to replace all their existing non-conforming equipment by some date. I imagine the post-dot-com networking market is taking a hurting now.
"They" can already get IP logs and such that reveal a lot even without access to the information contained in the packets. Traffic analysis is a very powerful tool. The only people who would really stand a lot to lose from this would be the music and/or warez traders. Warez isn't that big a deal, and music copying isn't a big criminal deal here in Canada.
*shrug* Another cash grab. Hope someone 0wns the system good and makes Cisco look stupid. Oh, wait, DMCA. Nevermind.
..don't panic
or the very stupid evildo-er.
/dev/random to all my comrades they will never EVER figure it out.
If I simply send everything encrypted AND send lots of fake packets... I.E. random sized files that consist of the contents of
It's called hiding in a sea of garbage. Now write a nice small program that is a P2P sharing app (or a plug-in for one) that sends around some of those random files to other users (small ones 1-100K in size then keep your files in that size range)
Screw with them as they screw with you.
so a freenet node will completely hose this "eavesdropping system"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another" -- If the police cannot determine if a wiretap is running on the router, then what is to stop a malicious party from running one there without administrative knowledge?
"Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
Just when you thought it was safe, you find out you cannot even go outside your own net.
Stuff like this is going to hasten a return to peer to peer dial-up services like we had in the early 90's. Stuff like this seriously gives me the creeps. Knowing that my business's and my private info can be tapped like that and by multiple agencies is just...
Say it all together now...
Evil.
War 1984...not...
What is the point of encryption if you have to give up the keys. I say its up the the spooks to have the capabilities to crack my encryption rather than force me to hand over the keys. Even then, I'd only hand over the keys in encrypted form, still forcing them to use their supper computers. Serriously, encryption is a black and white area... some grey, but mostly either a situation where you use it, or don't...
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
McCullagh makes an excellent point that US government agencies have a history of illegal surveillance. If protecting the public justifies building in eavesdropping capability, then it equally justifies building in accountability. Terrorists and civilian criminals aren't the only menaces to the public. Surveillance activity should be logged and sent to secure storage which can be accessed through well-defined legal channels.
You should absolutely Blame Cisco!
sulli
RTFJ.
Pine, a Dutch company already created such software.
Since eavesdropping on quantum encrypted transmissions is always detectable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If they do start to implement such eavesdropping facilities, I imagine that a lot of people might switch to routers powered by open source (such as Linux, BSD) so they can really know what's under the hood. Remember that a low end Pentium running Linux can easily route 10/100 Mbps.
That being said, Cisco knows that companies that used to buy from them will still probably buy from them. So this can't be a huge risk to their company. But the 'new features' would firmly embed government eavesdropping facilities in major ISPs, banks, large companies, schools, universities, etc.
I get what you are saying, but this is not a new concept. I used to work for a big cell-phone maker, in the cellular software division. I saw preliminary information about a wiretap project that would allow the carrier to intercept, log, and reroute calls if told to do so by some authorized government agency. I have no doubts this is possible, because we were working on real-time systems. To do it would take a second or two at most. I don't know what ever happened to that project, it kind of faded away and our department didn't actually work on it. But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
This isn't new, we are just able to find out about things like this now because of the internet. As much as we don't want "our" technology mucked with by the government, I think it is going to be tough to prevent.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
...because the loss of privacy leads to victimisation.
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But Inspector Plod is watching you anyway, and hey, he sees you downloading an interesting piece of porn.
Oh! It turns out you like watching [insert odd sex act here]. He guesses that might mean you are a member of [potentially embarrassing minority group]. He then uses this evidence to make your life hell.
Political groups can use these increased surveillance powers to spy on their opponents. Everyone ends up feeling "watched" and suddenly no-one trusts anyone anymore.
Protect your privacy while you still can.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
The real problem I see here is that we are creating a methods by which a government member can know absolutely anything about anyone at any particular point. Now what if we (meaning the US) mistakenly elect government officials with very bad intentions? It HAS happened before in democratic countries, and I will neglect specific examples in order to avoid Godwin's Law. I don't necessarily fear what our current government will do with these technologies. I DO fear the prospect of a group of rogues using an infrastructure that we implemented for evil. I really believe that it is necessary in a free society to maintain some methods of secret communication. All revolutions which resulted in a better society required channels of secret communication that were unheard by 'Big Brother' as some may say.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
In case you haven't picked it up from the article, the designation for this new protocol is DPUG..Double Plus UnGood.
If you don't like the ramifications of using a Cisco product, then don't buy one. ( i know i wont purchase another )
Then, tell them why you wont buy their product and choose a competitor that hasn't vowed to violate their users privacy rights.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yay, another ignorant, there are certainly an abundance of people on slashdot who have the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
The only thing that surprises me is that they have been so slow to implement it. The government already has the equivalent of this for phone tapping:
Virtually all phone calls (cellular and land line) in America run through certain switches controlled by Verint and they are always used by law enforcement for wiretapping (and are constantly accused of abusing their authority). (Google for Comverse, the company's name before the recent change to Verint.)
Why do I h8 apple?
'and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another'
Because if they did then all they would do all day is send data to each other through the router about what doughnut, gun, and police force is best...
The funny thing is... I'm an army reserve and Auxiliary Police Officer which means I can make fun of myself!
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
So, the cops can packet sniff. Really, they could do that before, all this does is provide a better mechanism to do so. If we are talking about privacy, hardware is not the issue, the current laws are. If packet sniffing requires a courts approval, what does it matter if it is implemented in the hardware or not?
I guess, to me, this really isn't a huge deal, just an easier way for the cops to do their job.
So then Inspector Plod duly notes this. Later, when you speak out on a public issue unpopular with Inspector Plod's superiors, your affection for [insert odd sex act] is mysteriously leaked to the media.
You might want to ask Scott Ritter about a misdemeanor "sealed" arrest record that strangely became public knowledge after he publicly criticized recent Iraq policies.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
All hail encryption. All the more reason to encrypt everything.
Time to setup white list mail servers that only accept email from other white list mail servers where the keys have been shared via offline media.
These servers will interconnect via PPP over SSH connections (the keys will also be shared offline)
The filesystems on these machines will be encrypted also using keys stored on easy (and quickly) destroyable media (such as meltable USB memory sticks)
Just ideas...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Thats IT... I'm moving to Cuba they seem alot more free over there. Make room on the cot Elian.
So please get your heads out of the collective sand and realize that if your voice, VOIP or data traffic leaves your facilities its going to be picked up if someone wants to see it. So this is not new, nor is it news nor is it any different than what we already have in place.
I think the real motivation for the undetecatblilty by other snoopers clause is for this reason: if you were doing something illegal, and it were possible to detect a tap if you were also tapping, then it would make sense to tap your own connection, and you could determine if anyone else (the feds / police) were doing so
So go with Sun or Linux for networking gear. IMNSHO Solaris and IPFilter makes the best firewall anyway. Linux has good support in other areas such as 802.1Q spanning tree bridging and other neat tidbits. If the technology is open there is no where to hide.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
With all that's going on.. gee RFID tags, Patriot
Act,.... pretty soon our DNA will be on file.
And if your DNA is on file, then you can be
framed for a crime you did not commit.
I can't think of a single decent managed switch that doesn't come with a spanning port. This isn't any different in practice--it's just a system that allows for particular LE situations to be handled correctly. And for christs' sake, what's wrong with a lawful warrant? They even have those in fucking Canada and France, so why does "lawful intercept" immediately turn into "Evil American Facism"?
Did it ever occur to any of the bitchers and moaners here that when the FBI or the cops need to intercept network communications, they're working in the dark much of the time? They have a legal obligation to collect only what their warrant specifies, and nothing further. This is difficult, to say the least. Carnivore (and Magic Lantern, or whatever they call it now) is just a sniffer that is optimized for being VERY SELECTIVE about what it captures.
Why? Because if the FBI has a warrant for Guido Gambino's net traffic, but they accidently pick up some of Tony Gambino's traffic, too, stuff outside the warrant is tainted. Any good defense attorney could make the Feds look like monkeys on something like that. These guys are generally heavily incentivized to NOT violate your rights. This isn't absolute, but thanks to criminal defense lawyers, it's pretty fucking close.
The point of Cisco pushing this draft is to start a discussion about how to let LE get what it needs (and what YOU want it) to get when investigating crimes, but without accidentally violating the rights of anyone outside the scope of its efforts.
There are some people around here (not nearly everybody, but some) who really ought to grow up and realize that the Net isn't Stephen Levy's little MIT-hacker-paradise anymore. Real people, who sometimes commit very real crimes, use it, too. Do you think they all ought to get a free pass just because they're "cool" enough to use email?
Then again, in the RIAA age anything is possible.
Does this mean that ISP's are also required to inform their customers when/if they are using equipment that could potentially be used to gather information on you?
not to debate the point (privacy is hugely important) but if you are doing things which you are ashamed of, maybe you should ask yourself a few questions.
In Scott Ritter's case, he was accused propositioned sex from (who he thought) an underage girl over the internet. In fact it was an undercover police officer.
Either the charges are true, or they aren't. If they are true, Ritter should go to prison. If they aren't, then his name is cleared. Otherwise, from your example, Inspector Plod could just make up any old charge he wanted to and "leak it to the media" anyway.
MORTAR COMBAT!
All data passing through a Cisco switch or router can already be examined, observed, or archived. I've designed countless Cisco networks with intrusion detection in either hardware or IOS. If the government is demanding accountability for data traffic then something has to be added to the network to make that data available. Just as with external IDS this causes bottlenecks.
If companies are forced to comply with government and law-enforcement demands then they want a way to comply with the least disruption to their business. Remember we are talking about ISPs here. Your personal equipment is not going to have a jack that Ashcroft can plug into to get his kicks from reading your IMs.
This is reality now. It will do no good to direct your rage at Cisco. Exercise your rights, and your brain, by voting. Your fantasy that the market leader is going to take a stand for individual rights in the face of draconian Federal policy and change the course of history is laughable.
Thus its not like itsa new form of intrusion or the ersoion of a sacred right. Moreover we have an extensive legal system that already know how to walk an acceptable line between preserving public order and unlawful searches and seizures. yes there are flagrant abuses of course, but the basic level of public expectaion and legal machinery is inplace to deal with this
Thus the real question is if the ascroft era people will try to use this as an end-run around the existing legal machinery. I paraphrase a former missouri senator who said (about carnavor-like intrusion) "I dont put a phone jack on the outside of my house so the feds can listen in when they please, so I dont want a jack on my internet connection for the same purpose". Ironically that senator was the John ascroft before he lost hisz relection bid to a dead man and became the worst attourney general ever including edwin meese. Now he chafes at these restrictions and does indeed want such a jack and the pre-emptive authority to use it without a court order, probable cause, or a defined list of evidence to be gathered.
Thus I welcome the cisco method since it formalizes what is now a covert and thus unmonitored process. thus this may bring the light of public scrutiniy and invite the invocation of past legal precedent.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Boy, it sure looks like a lot of you guys have a great plan in place. "I will spew much encrypted garbage data along with encrypted real data!" "I will encrypt my own shit and not give up the key! If I have to give up the key, the key will be encrypted!!" I wonder: how long would you sit in jail, without parole or phone call, until you decide to give the keys up to the local police? Because those guys don't care how encrypted your shit is, and thanks to the current administration they don't have to.
If you're wondering why Cisco - who has enough money to buy just about anyone except for Microsoft or Motherfucking Fujitsu Heavy Industries - is bothering to implement this particular technology, consider the above.
"The most cigarettes."
i am curious what the performance of a router is going to look like with two agencies peering into it.
on the face of it this is going to look like a provider outage i am thinking. since its completely 'transparent' even with multiple big brothers or any blakc hat people that might have jumped on the router as well i am thinking.
if nothing is going to show up in the interface statistics and nothing in the cpu is going to account for the activity. but when you look at your csu/dsu (or equivlent) you will see the activity.
maybe the best way to deal with this is to forget using the real traffic, but rather use the rfc that they propose for actual communication since its invisible to the other peers. sounds like a stealth vpn to me of sorts.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
It's not like wiretapping is not possible right now, it's just that there is no standard way of doing it. I assure you, every reasonable ISP has taps in place, if not for the government, then for its own internal use - to be able to diagnose problems, track DOS's, etc.
The solution is what it always has been - you are responsible for your privacy. Use encryption - SSH, PGP, etc to protect yourself from eavesdropping.
Now if the government passed a law forbidding encryption, that would be a whole different story.
grisha.org
Physical limitations that provide what we today call "privacy" are already on the way out the door. In a hundred years, technology will be at the point where every private citizen will be able to see and hear just about anything anywhere.
Whether this is good or bad for society is another matter, but it's been suggested that we'll simply need to adapt. Arguably, using information obtained through "privacy-invading" means is just childish immaturity, when you look at the big picture. Maybe our society just needs to grow out of that?
Fighting change in this area of technology only delays the inevitable and keeps the abilities in the hands of the surreptitious and those who *would* use it solely for their own benefit.
Something to think about...
It's an Internet Draft, not an RFC. From RFC 2026 (slightly reformatted to placate the "lameness filter"):
> > about a misdemeanor "sealed" arrest
> he was accused propositioned sex from an underage girl
I don't have any first-hand knowledge of such laws, but I would think that that would be more than a misdemeanor, no? I would hope it is at least.
we still haven't gotten it after several thousand years.
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
...equate to privacy being required? It seems to me that you're assuming it's a bad thing for an anti-porn person to discover someone watching porn. Maybe this would force them to talk, and to get a better understanding of each other. Maybe it would help the anti-porn people understand that sexual desires are normal and healthy, and maybe it would help the pro-porn people understand that there is a lot of exploitation in the porn industry. Maybe it would even lead to better regulation of porn to remove such problems. It seems to me that the major reason North America (maybe the world, I haven't travelled much) is so fucked up on a sexual level is that we don't talk about it enough, and as a result we don't have the faintest idea what normal is.
Yeah!
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Cisco is playing lab dog to the government but not its customers.
No. Cisco is trying to self-regulate so they can perform IP "wiretapping" on their own terms. The arrival of IP telephony tapping at your local ISP is inevitible; Cisco would be foolish to ignore it.
I work for a telecom equipment manufacturer. (yes, one of the few remaining..) My current project is testing the feature on our TDM switch that supports CALEA. (hence the anonymous post..) The capabilities of CALEA-compliant systems do not greatly expand on the old-fashioned method of physically tapping a suspect's copper line. They just simplify the telephone company's ability to administer taps. Basically, it just brings wiretapping to the digital age.
One thing to note is that the telephone companies, not the law enforcement agencies, are the people administering the taps. It is this separation that protects us from over-zealous police. Before the telco creates a tap, they must receive a court order. If they don't have a judge's signature, they tell to agency to blow smoke.
The FBI is scared $hitless about the convergence of circuit and packet-switched networks. IP telephony is much easier to secure than twisted-pair. But, just as people can buy a set of encrypting handsets for their regular telephones, people can add encryption on top of their IP voice call. Its generally only the crooks that do that, but the capability exists for anyone to do so. In fact, its significantly easier in IP, which is why the FBI is so scared.
I'm not worried about Cisco's RFC. I would rather the rules for how to tap IP telephony come from a knowledgable IP player than from the FBI. If Cisco doesn't write the RFC and get some semblance of a working system, Congress (through the FBI) will write it, and THAT would be a disaster. If Cisco does it right, you can expect the RFC to become law. And we should also expect an OSS implementation so ISPs can continue using Linux routers instead of having to buy Cisco just for the tapping ability.
In fact, I smell a potential business op^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H uh, never mind...
Privacy is a basic human right. Big Brother surveillance programs deny us that right.
How ya like dat?
" ... multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another ..."
...!
...
Hoo-boy, this is going to lead to some interesting cases of mistaken identity
Makes me think of PKD's A Scanner Darkly
-kgj
The good thing about this (if there is one) is that it is not a law. Yet. It says in the article that many providers are still insuring that they can recieve products without this feature so that they will not the legally required to enable it.
The bad thing is that some parts of the internet infrastructure, especially in other countries, are owned by goverments. This will lead to the governments having more oversight without making a official requests.
Imagine those communites in America that were so greatful that their municipal government stepped up and provided them with subsidized fiber access. Will they be so greatful when systems like these get employed so local law enforcement gets to observe them?
Makes me feel like when Verizon turned my records over to the RIAA.
What is to keep someone from starting an OpenIOS project? Software to run on a Cisco router. A couple years ago I actually registered openios.com/org (registering the domain, about as far as 90% of my projects get) thinking that surely this is possible, maybe now is the time for it to start? I don't have near the expertise to start a project such as this, but surely it is possible.
This doesn't bother me at all; it just brings the internet to the same level as the telephone system. As long as they need a court-order to tap it (in the US), I think this is a fine idea.
Yeah, someone else could break in, too. Someone else could tape your phone as well. As long as there's a judge who has to sign off on it, I'm fine with this; getting ridding of the bad aspects the Patriot Act and DMCA should be the priority, then we won't need the paranoia over obvious solutions like the one Cisco has put forward.
Yay, another ignorant, there are certainly an abundance of people on slashdot who have the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.
Translation: "You're stupid, just like all the other people that don't agree with me.".
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
Translation: "An authority exists which has the potential to abuse it's power, therefore this authority must be kept weak by other methods, particularly ignorance."
This argument can be applied to remove any law enforcement. Yes, officers with bad attitudes can harass people for any number of reasons, race, sexual preference, or maybe they just got cutoff by a different white Honda on the way to the station this morning. Each of the previous three examples is wrong (as any crime), will always happen (as any crime) and should be punished (as any crime). Trust in law enforcement is a cornerstone of our society and should exist without all of us covering our tracks in daily life like criminals.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Translation: "I couldn't come up with any better arguments so I'm going to resort to name calling again."
Look, I understand that power corrupts. I strongly support individual rights and personal freedoms. But I would prefer to have these freedoms not through the furtive actions of looking over my shoulder to make sure no one is watching, but by the pervasive understanding throughout our society that we respect and even support one another's freedoms. To paraphrase an earlier patriot, I may not agree with what you (legally) do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it!
Note: I will also defend your right to resort to name calling, though I similarly reserve the right to hold it up to public ridicule. Done and done.
Sometimes even if the crime is a felony, the DA may choose to prosecute for a lesser crime if it is much more likely to get a conviction.
MORTAR COMBAT!
I'd love to create some crypto traffic between my home box and work machine (besides the normal SSH, of course). The more white noise packets floating around out there, the better. TCP/IP spook fodder, if you will.
Better yet, is there an encrypted, routed "internet" I can plug into at will when I'm online, just to obfuscate my traffic a bit? Or is that what Freenet is about?
Method of processing duck feet
They sold monitoring and censorship technology to the Chinese government, and weren't punished for it by the marketplace. So the chickens now come home to roost.
This really isn't that big of a deal, and can nearly be accomplished today (except for the decryption part) in many of Cisco's products. For instance, a common deployment of Cisco equipment is to put a router on a switch blade. Switches have the ability to span a port, duplicating all the traffic that comes and goes from one port to another. This is how you sniff in the switch world.
I would be much more fearful of laws that require encryption key escrows or laws that make it illegal to encrypt something to begin with.
The technical landscape, and advance of science is nearly impossible to control, except through really silly laws.
Casca
Because it's none of the Feds business. If you aren't concerned with your privacy, why do you post as 'beee', rather than under your real name? If you're a conservative, you should be worried that the ultra-liberal feds will take offense at your racist /. sig and toss you in jail. If you're a liberal, you should be afraid that the neo-fascists will come by and arrest you for opposing Gulf War II. If you have nothing to hide, why not let everybody from every government agency eavesdrop on your phone calls, e-mail, and website postings? Why not let them bug your house, car, place of employment, and your clothes? What are you trying to hide?
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
We have some capabilities in some of our equipment that will allow you to take all the traffic that goes across an interface and send it to another interface. Right now that is used in some cases as a lawful interception technology.
When we first started talking, some engineers said, "Let's turn this on and use that." I said, "Heavens no, if we can narrow the range of information, let's do it."
CISCO Port SPAN. This is what he is refering to. They can currently trap all the packets. This new technology will allow them to select a smaller subset of packets to capture...
This is still scary stuff, and will lead to other new encrypted VOIP stuff that is not built around Cisco hardware, but sending packets themselves, encrypted...
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
Tomorrow, MS/Palladium.
Fuck you John Ashcroft. You are the evil that the founding fathers warned us about. Now where the hell did I put that musket?
Look at the some of the guys which were released from prison after being cleared [innocented] by DNA evidence, and still people think him guilty (there was a ncie article about the procurator still thinking his conduct is suspect and the neighbourghs shunning him but I can't find a link).
Public follow (wrongly IMO) the old adage "there isn't smoke without fire". Cleared or not your REPUTATION is MARRED.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
products - can you imagine a foreign government willingly purchasing a product that the Dept. of Homelame Insecurity has a back door to? There is a huge market outside the US and companies like Nortel are probably cheering Cisco on at this point.
Having not read the article the following just came to mind:
Cisco recently purchased Linksys...Linksys makes networking devices for home and small business.
What would be the possibility of Linksys/Cisco building this capability into your own home router, ande giving the feds instructions on how to access raw logs after loggin in with a 3,000,000 bit key to stop hackers from exploiting the same backdoor? Suddently this becomes less about watching everything going over your ISP's DS-3's and more about what pr0n sites you go to on your own ADSL line.
(shiver)
This government of ours is acquiring ridiculous amounts of power and the freedom to do anything they want with it. This is simply unacceptable.
Real people, who sometimes commit very real crimes, use it, too
Fine. If that is the case, the cops can go get a fucking warrant and actually perform some effort finding evidence. Forcing people to help the feds hoover up potentially incriminating data about _everyone_ is insane. Absolutely nobody would think it a good idea to put master-key capability into locks or bank vaults that only our Beloved Leaders could use. This sort of all-pervasive surveillance combined with the sheer stupidity of current tech laws is a very, very bad combination. The laws cannot be accurately or totally enforced, so they'll be used only for political or corporate pissing matches like the DMCA has been.
Dyolf Knip
Actually, according to the article, Ritter is alleged to have "had a sexual discussion." This is not at all the same as propositioning.
Was he tried? Was he found guilty? The article doesn't say. What it does say is "The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal."
In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So accordng to the information provided, Ritter is currently innocent of the charges, and likely to remain that way.
There is no reason to release the arrest record, and in fact County officials refused to release the arrest record. In such cases its unethical and likely illegal to release the arrest record.
This leak sounds to me more like the tactics of a police state than a democracy that values freedom. Which is the greater crime; Ritter's alleged misdemeanor, or the leak? Do you think this leak will even be investigated? I'm not holding my breath.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
So that once the script kiddies or black hats get access to the eavesdropping features, nobody can hold them accountable. (not to mention watching the watchmen).
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Does anyone else feel like their head is going to explode? Maybe it's just me then...
nSo much for the 'land of liberty'. Let's knock another chip off the old plymouth rock!
Hey, what does this button do? Woops....
From the article... "The FBI unlawfully spied on Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr., feminists, gay rights leaders and Catholic priests. During its dark days, the bureau used secret files and hidden microphones to blackmail the Kennedy brothers, sway the Supreme Court and influence presidential elections..." (emphasis added). Can someone tell me when the FBI's "Dark Days" ended? As far as I can tell, the FBI is distinguishing itself by "losing" laptops and weapons, failing to act on data related to 9/11 terrorists, punishing its employees when they call it out on its rotten practices, and getting seriously into bed with spies. Yeah, I trust them with my personal data.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
What if you're doing something wrong that shouldn't be wrong?
There are a lot of things in this world (I'm speaking more facetiously than about how filesharing shouldn't be wrong, or similar) that are illegal (sleeping in bathtubs, having anything other than missionary-position sex with a member of the opposite sex/gender) which shouldn't be illegal.
What if it's something you're doing in private that, whether or not it's illegal, only affects you and not someone else? (see above for examples)... presto, you have no privacy any more.
Do you really want that? You probably don't. A person with nothing to hide is not a person any more.
So is this why Cisco wants to buy Linksys?
So "they" can then monitor home users directly?
What about using a secure web proxy, like Anonymiser? It seems that a service like that would stop would-be snoopers from seeing any sort of transmitted data, be it routing info or web content itself.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Also, look at products like those offered by startups including CloudShield -www.cloudshield.com - these boxes when used with or within Cisco/Juniper/Avici/Procket/Caspian routers will make such 'intercepts' much more powerful. then all one needs is googling capabilities built in and voila.... sharks riding on elephants with frickiN laser beams on their heads....
Quote from Fred Baker, "There are two sides. One is that Cisco as a company needs to let its customers abide by the law. The other is the moral and ethical issues. There are two very separate questions."
First of all, this makes it sound like there was a law passed which specifies all routers must have this kind of capability. I sure have not heard about that.
It sounds like currently an ISP can be subpoenaed to find out what a particular person is sending. Currently, the ISP seems to provide complete logs and allows law enforcement to sort through it. This just sounds like bad practice of law. If we lived in John-Ashcroft's-wet-dream-land where every packet has a personal ID number on it which could not be forged or faked, sure you could ask for what a person sends. This is so far from the case that it is a joke. Even if I only use one computer and it has one IP address, what if someone else uses it? Even if the email has a name on it, what if it was forged? It would be laughably easy to plant evidence on, say, a business rival. Bottom line: computer are not very secure, in general. (Side note: sure, your computer may be very secure but visit, say, a law office. You may be surprised - even by very large law offices with nice wood panneling and mugs with the partner's names on them.)
If subpoenaed for John Q. Terrorist's internet activity, knowing what we know, we cannot hand anything over with a clean consience. If, on the other hand, all of IP address 64.22.xx.xx is subpoenaed, sure, we have to hand it over but we cannot say who did what with any great certainty.
Lastly, Mr. Baker seems to indicate providing a product is separate from morality. This is a very disjointed view of work - almost on the verge of: "what I do at work should be totally separate from morality." This is quite frightening. Perhaps this is too strong. He is clearly saying if the company follows the law, this is completely separate from morality. Again, this should be frightening: if you follow the law, morality is not at issue? The most obvious reaction is that if the law is wrong, in America, you have a responsibility to not follow it. Being part of a corporation does not absolve you of your duties as a citizen.
In my opinion, the workplace is where people are least moral (in my experience) and thus it is exactly where people need to be thinking of morality the most - certainly not separating it and arguing "we are just following the law".
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
I will never buy your bullshit products and never recomend them to anyone!
As a matter of fact, I build and sell products that directly compete with your products and outpreform them by an imeasurable factor.
And the price that I sell them at is so, so, so far below the price of your sorry products that people fall all over themselves to buy *MY* products, which by the way, is not hackable like your trash is..
FU Cisco..
DEATH to Orwellian Dictators!
I guarantee you can't "fsck" "underage girlies" all you want. If there is a definition of "underage" then you are likely committing a serious crime, no matter what country you are in.
What defines "underage" varies greatly from country to country, and even in the US varies greatly from state to state.
If you are "fscking" 9-year old girls, then you are the one making me sick.
MORTAR COMBAT!
The hardware is designed to hide the sniffing so that you don't have to bother with the warrent. This is evil because it requires no extra equipment or programing, it's just there part of the ordinary equipment. Other things leave a trail. This leaves you and your ISP in the dark. It's in the spirit of Carnivore, USA-Patriot and all that. It's not what I pay my taxes for and it's unAmerican as all hell.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
just read the article and I cannot stop Laughing meh twisted little ass off. I mean ok this all looks good and well on paper for both cisco and the U.S. Goverment, But the thing that I am wondering if they have thought of and can't wait to see for my self is... WHAT DO THEY THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN THE NEXT BIG CISCO IOS EXPLOIT COMES OUT?!?! lol, I mean seriously, wtf are they thinking, every ISP in the country, and everyone of their customers will be at the mercy of legions of script kiddies, I mean am sorry credit info, login names and passwords, social security #, and all at the hands of any 15 year old with a gcc compiler and C script. They are making themselves targets for exactly the kind of thing they wanna prevent. Well... when it happens I will be sitting back with a sipping my drink and laughing my ass of at it --ph1zzle
It's neither a question of "things which you are ashamed of", or which are illegal, but of things which could be used against you by unscrupulous officials or others who gain access to such data.
It's not an RFC. RFCs have RFC numbers.
What's the RFC number for this document?
things which could be used against you
If I am neither ashamed of the activity, nor it is illegal, how can it be used against me?
unscrupulous officials or others who gain access to such data
Now we're getting somewhere. Now it seems like we are talking about someone stealing my credit card numbers or identity. There are existing laws to prosecute such activities.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Yeah, that Motherfucking Fujitsu Heavy Industries is one unpredictable TV pilot. Did that show ever enter production? If so, can I get a "hookup" to go with these fourtees?
The previous sig has been removed due to
Now the government is going to know why you are so mean to the guy with the big white face and grey body!
I figure they owe you a new cake.
This Like That - fun with words!
I hear a lot of clamor about the "Right to Privacy."
That right doesn't exist people - you share this planet with six billion other people.
If you interpret the antiquated documents our country is founded on to mean this then perhaps you are mistaken (and the documents misguided.)
You do not own the phone system or the components of the internet. You do not own the the space they occupy or the airwaves they transmit. You cannot dictate what should happen on them or how they should be administered.
To utilize these systems is a privilege, not a right. -DD
But I would prefer to have these freedoms not through the furtive actions of looking over my shoulder to make sure no one is watching, but by the pervasive understanding throughout our society that we respect and even support one another's freedoms.
You're living in a dream world. Hey, I agree with you, but hell will freeze over before we "respect and even support one another's freedoms." Don't go taking my privacy away based on some fantasy that it will bring about a wonderful revolution in attitude, where everyone is happy and the world is like a Care Bear movie.
Life doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
The examples given thus far have been tame. "Some cop will harass you because he doesn't agree with your views." Wait until you start doing serious research on, say, abortion. You post anonymous messages on forums because you've knocked your girlfriend up and need advice on how to abort. Someone with access to the monitoring equipment decides he doesn't like that, so he has the both of you killed.
Don't think it could happen? There are people on both sides of every major debate who will kill you to protect their interests. I believe the murdered abortion doctors are a testament to that.
No, I'm sorry, but your fantasy world doesn't exist, and it never will. You may defend my freedoms, but that doesn't mean my neighbor will. I may trust you, but when I have no privacy, I have to trust everyone - and society has shown time and time again that an awful lot of people aren't trustworthy.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Rich
We could build a box that would monitor packets in, with the packets out (transpearant bridge) and parse the diff. That way, we would know who is doing what and sending it where. (and target future Slashdot DDS)
The other thing is, the network (inet) is more or less public and decentralized, which is DIFFERENT from Telco service which is more or less private and centralized, which makes it (anti privacy measures) much more difficult to implement, as one could route around the wiretap.
No, the only way the Feds/NWO/xIAA/etc could effectively wiretap networks is through a transperant bridge in the middle (between two routers). And a good sys admin, should be able to spot the increase in delay of such a solution.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
my uncle died of an evil bit.
Anti-Religion, Italian (close enough), Male, 29 years old, 180K/year (and rising), Democrat-Liberal.
Guess I'll have to buy a few politicians.
Sorry, as a mere human whose last name is not Gates you cannot afford to buy any politicians. Certainly not with a puny $180k per year income.
Vote for the person my ass, more like vote for the better commercial.
There are very real differences between many of the candidates on many of the issues. There are republicans that are quite liberal and democrats so conservative that they make Baby Bush look like a liberal. If you cannot be bothered to do the research and find out which is which, and instead vote along party planks and platforms, you are quite probably voting against your own views in more than one instance. This isn't Europe we're talking about, where strong party discipline and parliamentary divisions based upon party percentage rule the day, this is America, with all of its 2-party follies firmly in place
The problem we are really confronting is one which runs much deeper than liberal v. conservative, republicrat v. democan, and one which Libertarians (for all I disagree with their "capitalism ueber alles" mentality) are very correct in pointing out: there exists among both liberals and conservatives the notion that it is appropriate and good to use governmental power to coerce the other side into abiding by one's own personal views on what is right or wrong.
Until conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, both take a step back and begin to respect the constitution and the freedoms it is intended to insure more than their own personal economic, political, and social agendas, we will continue to have our most basic freedoms eroded, regardless of which party is in power. Indeed, if this doesn't stop, and quickly, we will find ourselves living in a police state to rival that of any stalinist regime, and it is a crap shoot as to whether that will be a police state run by corrupt democrats beholden to Disney and Time-Warner, or one run by corrupt republicans beholden to Esso, Exxon, and McDonald-Douglas, and while the outcome of this crap shoot may be of great interest to Disney, Time-Warner, Esso, Exxon, McDonald-Douglas, et. al., it will ultimately make little difference to the rest of us, condemned by our own impotence to living beneath such tyranny.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You don't even have to go back far enough to invoke Godwin here. In this country COINTELPRO is the most egregious disrespect for privacy outside of say, East Germany.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Like this?
Line 1: Sssh, I can hear something.
Line 2: Hey bob, we got something.
Line 1: It's them!
Line 2: They can hear us!! Quick, drop the hardline.
Line 1: They've gone, call downtown!
Downtown: Oops sorry, we forgot to update the IOS.
nb: laugh
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
Wow. Mod parent for "cognitive dissonance". What abilities does Cisco's draft standard give to the Feds or cops that they don't already have, guy?
The Patriot, Patriot 2, and any other acts of the US or foreign governments that represent serious invasions of our privacy have nothing whatsoever to do with lawful intercept standards. If the government is sniffing you illegally or legally without good oversight, you're still getting fucked, anyway.
Remember Carnivore? That's actually a much, MUCH more invasive tool for lawful (or otherwise) intercept. A coherent standard, built into the router, would make Carnivore unnecessary and (probably) constitutionally impermissable as an over-broad surveillance tool.
Right now, if the FBI gets a warrant to sniff your Net traffic, they walk into your ISP's office with a warrant and plug their sniffer into a router. They'll probably use a filtering expression to just look at stuff heading to/from your IP address (as reported by the ISP), but maybe they won't. Maybe they'll capture raw traffic and parse it out later to get your packets, throwing out the rest.
For the ISP, this isn't really very fun. They have to give up control over their router to the Feds, because there isn't any developed protocol for describing lawful collection of data on a router. What if Special Agent Johnson doesn't know the Cisco 7600 series as well as he thinks? Whoops, there's some downtime for the ISP, and maybe a bill for a new router if something really gets fucked up.
And what if the tap has to stay in place for a while? Some wiretap orders persist for months. That means Agent Johnson will be hanging around and making you nervous at work for quite a while. He likes his coffee black with sugar, just so you know.
The new standard would allow an ISP or other company to look at a warrant, turn around to the router, and put the tap in place themselves. The FBI will ONLY see what they specify in the warrant, and the ISP gets to continue on serving up porn to the rest of us. No muss, no fuss, no incidental privacy violations.
Too late... I've already done things that are illegal and that I am ashamed of. Of course this was quite a while ago, but still, I should really keep my opinions to myself from now on. Never know when someone might dig up something from 20 years ago.
Free speech is a right only for those who have nothing to hide.
Of course, this means very few folks now actually have the right to free speech....
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I think he mentioned something about unseen beings having quite a good view of all our activities, and that we should not cause them offence.
Quite how one can wipe one's arse, or have a Tommy Tank, in such a situation, is beyond my feeble mind, but perhaps we need to look to the ways of the ancient sages for their advice in these uncertain times.
One thing's for certian, however: if we're going to be monitored by the government, then we need to be able to monitor their every activity also.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Because there aren't any WMD in Iraq?
You might also wonder - particularly given the nature of the offence - just why a certain individual went from being a highly-regarded UN weapons inspector into being an ardent denier of the existence of WMD in Iraq and one of the Iraqi regime's most strident supporters.
You might wonder if it had anything to do with, say, visits involving inspections at Iraqi childrens' prisons and orphanages.
You might Google for the sexual practices of family members of a certain Iraqi dictator.
You might wonder about the propensity of a certain Iraqi dictator to employ large armies of people to act as "Inspector Plods" and perform counterintelligence work in order to pre-emptively compromise any potential threats.
You might even conclude that a certain former UN Weapons Inspector's leaked arrest record answers more questions than it raises
You might wonder whether the above constitutes slander and libel.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
How soon we forget. It has happened before and it happend right here in the good ol' USofA. Ignoring the obvious Watergate references, there was also the little matter of the 1960's COINTELPRO. This is why we have most of our (scant) existing privacy rules in the first place (the ones that Ashcroft and Co. are working so hard to get overturned).
-JS
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
All your privacy are belong to John [Ashcroft, Chambers]
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
(and I'm about as opposed to accumulation of government power as anybody could ever want to be)
In this particular case there are repercussions which cannot be righted in a court of law. If you are harassed or blackballed as a result of some particular belief you privately hold or some personal practice of yours then perhaps you can sue the person who started the whole mess but that won't fix the problem.
Look at OJ Simpson. The court cleared him, but what is public opinion of him? Would suing anyone help him now? Does it matter whether he did it or not? The stigma, the bad press will always follow him, no matter the court's decision. If you're given such bad press, nevermind for what, you'll be followed by the same unshakeable curse.
Try clearing your credit after a case of identity theft and then tell me how convicting the criminal made all the problems go away.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
If you have a secure communication that you wish to remain secure then it is always best to manager your own public and private keys and encrypt the data yourself. That way, short of putting a keystroke logger physically inside your keyboard, which the FBI has been known to do that to overcome PGP and other types of encryption, one can be reasonably assured that any private communications will remain private. I do not believe that you can be forced to turn over the pass phrase to your PGP keys either since this would be tantamount to incriminating yourself and citizens of the United States are protected against this by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. They may be able to break my pass phrase key string by brute force, but that would take a while. The fact that all of this is even necessary is a sad commentary on the continuing erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The indiscriminate monitoring of Internet, voice, and other communications routinely used by ordinary citizens is reminiscent of the activities and duties of the secret police forces in the repressive former Soviet block nations such as East Germany, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. One should not be subjected to surveillance unless one has given the authorities probable cause to expect that one is engaged in criminal activities. The use of encryption is not by itself probable cause to suspect that someone is engaged in criminal activity. We don't hassle people for using security envelopes at the post office so why should we harass people who use freely available encryption technologies? I want the terrorists and the bad guys caught and punished just as much as the next law abiding citizen, but I don't want my freedoms to be squelched in the process.
Then, though I'm not a specialist, you CAN run some sort of internet service WITHOUT an ISP, right? From what I understood, my airport base station allows me to "PPP dial-in", which means I can connect to my home network through any telephone line, without an ISP. There probably are a lot of modems (all of them?) around that support dial-in and line pickup: you have a (slow) computer-to-computer connection with no ISP involved. Add SSH and crypto, and you have a "fairly secure" connection (unless, of course, the feds decide to wiretap phone connections as well, which is probably what is happening with projects such as Carnivore/TIA...)
OR, you could try moving to Europe, but do it quick before our own Beloved Leaders® figure out how they can use this brand new Cisco hardware.
"On another note", I wonder if all this is really intented to fight terrorists, criminals and druglords... Read this (article says that some narco kingpin in Colombia managed, in 1998, to deploy a wireless computer network that ranged "across the Caribbean and the upper half of South America.", and that could be accessed to with laptops, even in planes and boats) to see what I mean: evildoers (maybe not Al-Qaeda and such, but who knows?) probably use alternate methods for their most important communications. So why do they bother wiretapping ISP's? Wouldn't it be wiser to try and bust these alternate networks (if there still are)?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
I would like an IP over IP system that uses valid, normal looking data to hide exactly what's happening regardess of the data being carried.
n d/
From CodeCon, Invisible IRC networks, IP steganography etc:
http://codecon.deor.org/program.html
Of relevance here is http://peek-a-booty.org/ a privacy enhancement system described as a distributed anti-censorship application.
Covert channels in the TCP/IP Protocol:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_5/rowla
This discusses a means to use IP to hide outgoing data for nefarious purposes, this could also be used to hide your personal outgoing data which is becoming a nefarious activity.
Many more hits on the web that I don't need to post here. I can and do use encrypted pipes, SSH, SSL, PGP etc. In the CodeCon URL, which is very interesting, there are numerous mentions of privacy enhancing software and methods.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
A property of quantum crypto is the utter inability for people to eves drop on communications. At least at the physical layer anyways, there is no possibility of a man in the middle, or splice tap into the physical medium. At the network layer there is always the possibility, but the Cicso router hardly plays a hand in crypto in that space since it is only a data exchanger/switch/router. So the solution is to simply use SSL, IPsec, and SSH in conjunction of each other (aka crypto over crypto) on the public networks (the internet).
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Great comments.
Quite how one can wipe one's arse, or have a Tommy Tank, in such a situation, is beyond my feeble mind
In a world free of privacy, activities like this would need to be tolerated and respected. It gets to the point where it ceases to be a nasty curiosity and becomes another of those things you don't really care to think about.
if we're going to be monitored by the government, then we need to be able to monitor their every activity also.
A very excellent point! But it also has a hidden prerequisite: that the people watching the government understand why some seemingly strange or dangerous decisions may be necessary. Faith in one's leaders is very important. Complete transparency can be dangerous if we're allowing the general public to influence the informed decisions of someone at the center of it all.
Plus, if your government is transparent to its citizens, it's also transparent to its enemies. In an ideal world, nations wouldn't be working against each other, and this wouldn't matter.
We're still a long ways away from a world where these concepts would work.
Sure, but we've only had the computing power to uniformly and universally intercept all of those for a much, much smaller period of time. When it took two G-men to stakeout your house and check your garbage, government surveillance was much different than it taking two bored computer techs to intercept every single email in America with the words "bomb" and "Washington" in them. Now that the government has greater power and capability to infringe upon our rights, it needs more restrictions on it's use - not less. I particularly don't see why the public sector should make it easier to violate someone's rights, "We're only making it easier to go after criminals and terrorists" only works as long as you're not declared a terrorist I think.
Now what if we (meaning the US) mistakenly elect government officials with very bad intentions?
Or what if some corrupt people rig an election? You don't even need the population to actually vote 'em in.
Not that it matters, though. As you point out: I will neglect specific examples in order to avoid Godwin's Law.
Note that the "maximum leader" of that specific example was WILDLY popular with the electorate - including some that he later sent to their deaths. The war-era and postwar propaganda makes him out to be very abrasive. But in fact he was a friendly and cuddly sort in most of his personal appearances. A real baby-kisser. Popular with the ladies. Charismatic. Animal rightist. Environmentalist. Body-beautiful. Rah-rah our oppressed country. Fight crime. Blah blah blah.
MOST dictators start out like that. And still seem like that to many of their constituents even at the height of their atrocities. Which is why the above unnamed leader won his last elected position by a considerable margin.
By the way:
Premise: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Crollary: "Godwin's Law is very convenent for neofascists."
It WILL be back. It's ALWAYS trying to come back. When it comes, it will be called ANYTHING but the names it was called before. But it will be the same old thing.
Remember: "History doesn't repeat. But it does rhyme."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It'd be really scary if you lived here and didn't know the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is the basis of pretty much any ruling on privacy in the US. (Remember, this was written way, way before wiretapping.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Free speech is the right to speak freely. It is not the right to have anyone pay attention to you.
While this is technically true, there do seem to be a lot of public pressure to fall in line and not express any dissent. Consider for example the war against Iraq. Healthy and possibly crucial public debate is stifled because everyone should be "showing support for the troops".
Let us not also forget the example set by GWB who has said on several occasions that if you do not side with the US in the war on terror, then you are against the US, and apparently a supporter of the terrorists. This is hardly the sort of environment where debate and free speech will flourish.
You may disagree about the death penalty, but its existence in the U.S. doesn't make the U.S. a police state, anymore than its existence in European nations made them police states until they outlawed it. But that fact certainly seems to have given some Europeans a severe of case of unwarranted moral supremacy.
I agree with your first point, but I disagree with your opinion on the second. I believe that the US has executed minors who are generally not held to the same standards as adults most other places on the planet. Furthermore, while he was still a Governor, GWB refused to consider a plea for clemency in the case of a mentally retarded man who was due for execution. I believe those are the sorts of things that cause more civilized nations to claim the moral high ground when it comes to capital punishment. I believe that Gandalf said something to this effect: "Many who live deserve death just as many who die deserve life. Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement."
Since you're apparently a guest in my country, next time you wish to air your lies in public, at least make a bit of an effort to make yourself credible.
(sigh) No attempt to suppress rational debate there. I think the reference to "lies" was just a bit unwarranted, don't you think?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Now, Cisco come to the rescue, with their magic interception product. Except it will require a new version of the software (IOS) on the router, which will cost $bomb. And it will require Cisco proprietary back-end software (costing $bomb) which will only be sold with a Cisco-supplied server (a rebadged Compaq, costing $bomb). And of course, the ISP will probably have to put the routers, back-end software, and server under a maintainance contract so that Cisco wont disown them when something breaks, the interception stops, and the LEA is threatening to charge the ISP with obstruction of justice. That'll cost $BOMB, per year, every year.
So, the LEA's will come yelling to the ISPs demanding interception capability on their networks. The LEA's will probably want the ISP to use the Magic Cisco Solution(TM) because thats What Everybody Else Uses, and depending on the country, may even be able to force them to use it. The ISP will get railroaded into spending a metric assload of money with Cisco, which will get them a carnivore box to call their own, and not a lot else. Quite an elegent little marketing strategy that Cisco has..
Just ask Pete Townsend
This guy is way out there
In fact, Britain's RIP act is an open invitation to throw anyone who uses a computer in jail for an indefinite period of time. Why? Well, all the act says is that you must turn over encryption keys to your data to the cops upon request, or be tossed in jail without trial. No-where does it require the cops to produce any evidence that the data is encrypted. And since you can get thrown in jail for telling your lawyer that they asked...
Bushcroft still has a lot to learn from Blair about how to exploit a terrorist attack into a civil rights feeding frenzy.
Sigh!
I knew that the US educational system was bad, but not as bad as you just demonstrated! I wrote a few lines and you can't even read them.
Let me recap: I wrote "The impose death penalty on minors." I missed a 'y' in there, but the sentence is clear, no? I didn't say I disagree with the death penalty, did I? No, I said 'minors'. But that is probably asking too much of your literacy to fathom.
And when it comes to the traffic ticket, a friend of mine forgot to pay his, was pulled over by the Police because of a suspended license due to non-payment (btw, nobody took the time to inform him that the license was suspended!) and hauled off to jail. I'm really happy that the Police caught a dangerous criminal and got him off the streets. Yikes!
And as another poster mentioned, don't try to oppose the war, because then you'll be thrown in jail (see a pattern here?) and the police demands you to answer questions that violates your rights.
Freedom and democracy? Don't even get me started on that bull. The problem is that the average American has not been further away from home than their neighbouring county and has no clue as to what is going on in the world. Try to watch a news channel here to see what is happening around the world? Impossible, because you get "The world news in 60 seconds!" Gee... Not much happening in the rest of the world I guess since you can fit it in 60 seconds!
Americans = World illiterate!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
The Constitution guarantees your right to speak freely. It doesn't guarantee you immunity from peer pressure.
What you consider "public pressure to fall in line" is really just the fact that most people in the U.S. do "support the troops" when they're sent to fight. If you perceive that as pressure, or feel uncomfortable, that's a problem for you, but it isn't "public pressure" to conform.
GWB's "with us or against us" remarks seem fairly tame, especially considering they are targeted at foreign leaders, not domestic voters. If you want to talk about how you might disgree with that, no one is stopping you.
On capital punishment, people and countries can make up their own minds, but opting one way or the other doesn't make anyone morally superior to anyone else. Besides, claims of moral superiority -- as if there's some impartial party keeping score -- are just so much arrogant bigotry.
Gandalf "said"? Gandalf isn't real.
And, yeah. I consider the original poster's assertions to be untrue, i.e. lies. I'm not interested in "rational debate" with anyone who fails to show evidence of rationality, willingness to debate, or complete disregard for truth.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
...an evil router?
I guess we'll all be relegated to using homebrew Linux boxen for our routers. What a shame. Of course, such an act might be construed doubleplusunpatriotic by bb.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Hehe, Last time i looked (last year or so) Cisco was having serious issues with not being able to support traffic-policing on high-speed connections. A DDOS could literally fry the CPU if the NOC had configured anti-DDOS features, at least in some circumstances.
free dom(inion) - free energy - free your mind - whee!
Yeah, I saw the word "minor" So what? it doesn't change my opinion. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, but I don't think the death penalty has anything at all to do with democracy.
Sounds like you're trying to say your friend got pulled over for failing to pay a traffic ticket, and got caught driving with a suspended license. Well, bucko, driving without a license is a crime in the U.S. Sorry he forgot to renew his, but the duration of the license is clearly printed on it. And, no, failure to send someone a polite notice that license is expiring doesn't mean the U.S. is a police state. it simply means your friend is a bit irresponsible.
As for opposing the war, I know lots of people who oppose it, have been pretty vocal about it, and not one of them have been arrested. Now, people do get arrested for blocking traffic, defacing public property or commiting other crimes. Although they assert that they're doing that to protest the war, war protesters have been arrested for their crimes, not their opinions or their speech.
For the record, I've spent close to ten years living outside the U.S., in Europe, Africa, and the Arab Middle East. Apart from the Middle East -- where the media is almost all state controlled and saturated with government lies and propaganda -- I've found news eveywhere to concentrate on local issues. Why? Because that's their audience! And I've also found that most people are fundamentally ignorant of what the U.S. is really all about.
Again, try to come up with some facts to support your falsehoods.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Translation: "An authority exists which has the potential to abuse it's power, therefore this authority must be kept weak by other methods, particularly ignorance."
Hey, I wouldn't mind the government wiretapping me if I knew when it was going on. The thing is, they're taking away my privacy but not theirs. They want to keep ME ignorant of what exactly it is they're doing.
I'll show them mine if they show me theirs.
You obviously didn't read the previous post.. he said _suspended_ license, not expired, and implied it was suspended for non-payment of a traffic ticket, without notification. That is a different matter than an expired license.
"'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
Hey, I wouldn't mind the government wiretapping me if I knew when it was going on. The thing is, they're taking away my privacy but not theirs. They want to keep ME ignorant of what exactly it is they're doing. I'll show them mine if they show me theirs.
Sounds good to me! Of course that's not much solace if you know you're being watched all the time ala 1984.
Cisco doesn't build backdoors into it. It'll be a command that gets configured if needed, and left off if not.
What's the panic? So this saves me putting a hub tap on a line.
mindslip
for the anti-christ to keep track of everyone once he comes to power and to deny anything to anyone who doesn't follow him.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
IF you have Cisco Routers [ and software / manuals necessary ? ] Do NOT throw them out as they age. they will still be useful to us , later on...and who knows...they may be worth something someday...? but honestly... don't toss them...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Yes it was a suspended license, but he also said it was suspended because the guy didn't pay. Now who's fault is that? Think there's no consequences for not paying by the due date?
so the lesson is: don't trust any isp for your security. run true end to end level encryption and perhaps even spray across multiple isp's so the spooks can't easily reassemble the segments too easily. (oops - now I'm going to be in trouble...)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Sounds like you are thinking pretty hard on the political issues, but still need a nudge to come on over to the light side. :)
> one which Libertarians (for all I disagree with their
> "capitalism ueber alles" mentality) are very correct in
> pointing out: there exists among both liberals and
> conservatives the notion that it is appropriate and good
> to use governmental power to coerce the other side into
> abiding by one's own personal views on what is right or wrong.
Here you almost hit enlightenment, but shied away at the last moment. Embrace it! You admit that both major parties seek to use the power of government to coerce people to follow their moral code, see it is a bad thing but reject Libertarianism because they depend of capitalism. If the government is not going to regulate people, then what? Capitalism (not the mercantilism we are currently practicing) is nothing more or less than people settling their affairs peacably through the power of the free market.
> Liberals generally want to abridge the second amendment.
Agreed, but ask why they fear your gun but don't fear the same gun in the hand of one of their jack booted goons. Because they desire to control you, and because they fear you.
Both parties kowtow to hollywood, but for different reasons. Dems do so because of the money, pure and simple. Repubs do so because they think it is good for the economy. They might talk a good free market, but all too many are mercantilists who want a managed economy.
And on a side note, and at the risk of starting the mother of all flame wars.....
> Conservatives want to take away a woman's right to choose.
No they don't. Both sides are using misleading language tricks though.
It can't be about "Choice". It is a null argument because to allow the debate to be about a "woman's right to choose" presupposes that it isn't a person. And if we aren't talking about a person there really isn't much of a "Choice" to get all worked up about now is there?
The other side is just as bad. You can't accept their debating position of "Pro Life" without conceding that it IS a debate about killing a baby. At which point the end result is a given since there aren't going to be too many lining up on the "Anti-life" or "Pro Death" side of the fence.
The question both sides dance around; the question for society to answer, and answer it must, is when is a new "Citizen" created. Of course the first question is does the Federal Government have the right to decide that for the states? (I'd say no, which means Roe was a bad decision.) Should the Constituition be amended to codify a national consensus once/if one is reached?
Democrat delenda est
----
And when it comes to the traffic ticket, a friend of mine forgot to pay his, was pulled over by the Police because of a suspended license due to non-payment (btw, nobody took the time to inform him that the license was suspended!) and hauled off to jail. I'm really happy that the Police caught a dangerous criminal and got him off the streets. Yikes!
----
Well, when you hear news about people causing injuries and fatal car accidents driving around after their license is suspended, "driving on a suspended license" can be seen as a legitimately serious crime.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
In Hawaii for example, underage is under 16. In Austria, underage is under 14. In Chile, underage is under 12. Tunisua, underage is under 20.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/
MORTAR COMBAT!
The point it that it is a completely disproportionate response to a single unpaid parking ticket. If it's a failure to appear in court for a DUI charge, or something similar, where public safety is an issue, yes, that would be appropriate.
An unpaid ticket rates something along the lines of an additional fine, or a refusal to allow one to renew you license until paid, or adding it to his tax assessment. Suspending a license without notification is excessive, at least with the facts given.
"'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
Well, the guy's post was clumsy, but I read it to say his friend hadn't paid a traffic ticket, was pulled over for that, and was found to be driving with a suspended license.
Even if the failure to pay the ticket was the cause of the suspension, I r-e-a-l-l-y doubt he had not received some kind of warning that failure to pay could, eventually, cause his license to be suspended. I've only had a few tickets, and remember that the paperwork was full of all kinds of warnings about failure to pay or to appear in court.
Finally, even if some jurisdiction was stupid enough to suspend this guy's license without warning, that in no way jusifies the poster's claim that the U.S. is a police state.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Clinton smoked dope. GWB snorted cocaine and drove drunk. Both stories were very public, both men became president.
Don't worry about the past. If your present is worth anything, most people won't worry about your past, either.
That said, there's no way I'm taking my wife to my high school reunion... she doesn't need to hear how much of a hopeless geek I was.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
Your argument seems to be that the majority shouldn't be allowed free speach because the minority might not be heard. Doesn't seem to logical to me.
If the majority believe an action/bill/... is good then they have the right, and should, speak up. Everyone has a right to state their opinion but there isn't anything saying they shouldn't be ostracized for it.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
Also from my limited knowledge of how encryption works, if they can record your key exchange, then it's as if you're not encrypting anything!
Actually this is not true. Although it is possible to design insecure key exchange algorithms, the secure ones are designed with eavesdroppers specifically in mind (i.e., eavesdroppers cannot learn anything). Otherwise there would be no need for the algorithm.
The real problem with key exchange is man-in-the-middle attacks, where Bob and Alice think they are exchanging keys with each other, but actually they are both exchanging keys with me, and I'm secretly decrypting and re-encrypting everything while monitoring it. A few extra steps in the key-exchange protocols can prevent even that.
You might want to check out Applied Cryptography. It demonstrates fairly well how these things work.
Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
- Moral of the story: If you're in a
- politically-sensitive job, or think you might
- be, keep your frickin' nose clean.
Like Bill Clinton?
Ritter's nose probably is clean. The whole deal sounds like a setup to me from the get-go, and not by the Iraqis.
As to his anti-US posture, it seems clear to me that much of what he has said is now being echoed to some degree by Hans Blix, i.e., that US intelligence on Iraqi weapons was "pathetic", that the US either made up or ignored the obviously faked nuclear evidence, and that it deliberately cut out the UN weapons inspectors because it was looking for a war for its own agenda.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
- Plus, if your government is transparent to its
- citizens, it's also transparent to its enemies.
This is relevant only in the very narrowly defined areas of active intelligence and active military operations. Virtually everything else CAN be transparent without harm.
Also, your point about people understanding government operations. The point should be that in a transparent government, the reasons for those actions are in fact the items being made transparent, and the reason WHY you need transparent government.
But it will never happen because virtually every American doesn't care what the government does as long as he gets his Big Mac, his Slurpee at the 7-11, his Coors Light, his Monday Night Football, and his WWF Raw - until the government throws him or his kid in jail or gets one (or both) of them killed.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
No, I can blame you - because you voted.
You can't blame me - I didn't vote. I am in no way responsible for authorizing anybody to do anything in (supposedly) my name.
In fact, I spent over eight years in prison because I took up a gun to destroy these assholes.
The only thing you can blame me for is failing to do it. And I don't need your blame - I've got enough of my own.
Now I'm working to get the money and the technology to do the job right next time...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Now who posted this?
Bill Gates?
John Ashcroft?
George Bush?
Saddam Hussein?
Or just some asshole with the same attitude...
You think you are the one granting the "privilege"? Or are you just too gutless to accept that you exist "by privilege"?
Punks like this are a dime a dozen in this country. Suck up to the powers that be and act like they're one of them. I've got news for you - you're just another punk to George Bush and John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld and they'll ream your butt just like any other gutless "American" when they get the chance. And like every other gutless American, you'll take it and babble about how you like it and approve of it - just like you just did.
Punk.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
While it is easy (and reasonable, in some ways) to get bent out of shape about this, it really is not much of a story. Why? Because all voice switching equipment already has to have backdoors for electronic wiretaps. The requirements are known as CALEA: Communications Access for Law Enforcement Agencies, or some such. All access under CALEA has to be authorized by court order, at least in theory. Cisco is, at least in part, responding to a symmetric need. The thing to worry about is NOT whether/how this is implemented at the engineering level, but how the court orders are implemented.
I recall, and here am digging into memories AND am out of my depth, that St. John Ashcroft, the beloved, has eroded the levels of permission needed to get wiretaps. Now, if true, THAT's something to lose sleep about.
Wouldn't being forced to give over encryption keys violate our right to remain silent? Anyway, I'd prefer to destroy my encryption key and THEN answer the doorbell. Oh, I'm so sorry, the disk that had it on it accidentally fell under my 30-pound magnet. I'm truly sorry.
The original comment was very wrong about the status of the document by Fred Baker. It is currently an Internet-Draft, which is a type of document /anyone/ can write and submit (though Fred is definitely not just anyone). An I-D can then be advanced to RFC status, after the apropriate Area Director forwards it to the IESG for consideration. Only after the IESG approves it, and it has made it past the RFC Editor is it considered a product of the IETF and has any real standardization status.
No, you've got it totally wrong. It's all the others that are evil. Uh, and most Christians... and a great deal of socialists.
But I'm good! Promise!
-=- 4ntifa -=-
"Rational debate" is no one's obligation. Some things are absolute and not subjectt to debate. (Unless, of course, you believe that having tolerance for other views equates to holding no opinions yourself.)
The original poster claims the U.S. is a police state. He is demonstrably wrong. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. Either he knows he is wrong, and insists on willfully lieing, or he doesn't know he is wrong, and is lieing because he is ignorant. In either case, I have no interest or eithical interest in debating this.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This is relevant only in the very narrowly defined areas of active intelligence and active military operations.
And public safety. The patrol routes of domestic police, the response strategies for certain types of attacks or crimes, etc. (Though with a loss of privacy in many respects, perhaps domestic problems where this information is valuable simply wouldn't occur?)
Good point, though.
the reasons for those actions are in fact the items being made transparent, and the reason WHY you need transparent government.
And I might suggest that some areas still may need to be kept from the public, at least until certain events pass. Things that might incite a mob panic, for example.
I think this could be a very good idea, though. Perhaps the areas (like, as you suggest, active military and intelligence) that are "exempt" from the transparency should be made that way only through oversight of related branches? (I.e., in the US, amend the Constitution so that it requires transparency in all government activities where that transparency does not expose a demonstrable risk to life. The legislature can, through legislation, allow certain activities to become less-than-transparent, and judicial oversight can ensure that that follows the spirit of the amendment..)
This sounds like a good exercise for a sociology class.
That's solid right there, exactly what I meant.
I trust people who earn my trust, the way he sees it, he wants us to be forced (by law mind you) to trust everyone. And like you say, time and time again, the corrupt will take the upper hand.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
Some things are absolute and not subjectt to debate.
To a very limited extent. Certainly there is no point in debating whether 2+2=4. However, I think that you will eventually learn that when it comes to moral and ethical issues, there are very few absolutes. Most sane adults would agree that it is wrong to go about killing people indiscriminately. However, in the recent war against Iraq, "collateral damage" is deemed acceptable, and quite possibly noble, given that the most recently stated purpose of the war is to free an oppressed people.
If you want to disagree with the original poster's opinions, that's great. However, neither of you have produced any facts to justify your diverse opinions.
(Unless, of course, you believe that having tolerance for other views equates to holding no opinions yourself.)
I fail to see any connection between the two. Nice bit of fallacious reasoning though.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
What you consider "public pressure to fall in line" is really just the fact that most people in the U.S. do "support the troops" when they're sent to fight. If you perceive that as pressure, or feel uncomfortable, that's a problem for you, but it isn't "public pressure" to conform.
Please refer to John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty and pay particular attention to the section about the "tyranny of the majority".
GWB's "with us or against us" remarks seem fairly tame
How ironic, that such a comment should be found in a discussion thread about freedom of speech!
Gandalf "said"? Gandalf isn't real.
Undeniably true. That hardly makes the opinion expressed by Tolkien via the character Gandalf any less poignant. Too bad you missed the point by getting caught up in some trivial semantics.
I consider the original poster's assertions to be untrue, i.e. lies
Are you expressing the belief then that anything that is not 100% correct and accurate to be, by definition a lie?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Your argument seems to be that the majority shouldn't be allowed free speach because the minority might not be heard.
I don't think that is my argument at all. My opinion is that there is very little room for dissent (which is a vital part of free speech) in an environment where there is intense public pressure to adhere to a particular dogma.
Doesn't seem to logical to me.
That's just what *I* was thinking.
Everyone has a right to state their opinion but there isn't anything saying they shouldn't be ostracized for it.
Oh, the irony...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
>> Are you expressing the belief then that anything that is not 100% correct and accurate to be, by definition a lie?
Yep. The poster said the U.S. is a police state. That's untrue.
The poster based this untrue assertion largely on a friend's detention for failure to pay a traffic ticket and driving with a suspended license. Those are crimes. He might have made a plausible case that the punishment didn't fit the crime (although he gave us few details) but, even, then, it's ludicrous to extrapolate that one incident into a claim that the U.S. is a police state.
Re: Mills -- I see no evidence that the pro-war majority has legistated unfair restictions of the antiwar minority. Other posters have asserted that their free speeh is inhibited by Presidential speeches and majority opinion. If that's tue, that's a personal emotional issue, not a Constitutional issue. The right to free speech won't do you much good if you lack the courage to open your mouth.
And, I got the point about the Gandalf quote. It's just another sophomoric rephrasing of "Life is good, killing is bad". That's all well and good, but does nothing to stop a world full of people that are quite willing to kill for their own benefit. Thumping your chest about your own purported moral superiority is a particularly useless activity.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
To the contrary, there are many moral and ethical absolutes. Everyone decides what they are for themselves. That, however, has little to do with how people actually behave. People are obviously unable to adhere completely to their own moral beliefs. Add to that the fact that many people actually don't feel any remorse in killing, espcially if they benefit by the deaths. How is a firm moral conviction in the sanctity of life, absent a willingness to act to defend lives from those who don't share that belief, actually going to change anything? For every Ghandi and King, there is a Hitler, Stalin or Saddam. Anyone of those three would have shot Ghandi and King early on.
Finally, there should not be a connection between tolerance and holding firm individual opinions. Sadly, though, many people seem so driven to recognize the right of everyone to speak for themselves that they lack the courage to open their mouths and disagree. This gives sanction and support to many undeserving and/or loathsome notions.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The U.S. has detained people who have declared war on America, who considere it sacred duty to kill Americans, and who have taken up arms against Americans in pursuit of those aims. The overwhelming majority are not U.S. citizens and should not expect to be treated as such.
The U.S. has also detained a very, very few U.S. citizens who have also declared war on America and taken up arms against it. Most countries call that treason.
Whether or not the rights of these few U.S. nationals have been abused is debatable, but I see nothing going on in the U.S. that justifies a claim that this is a police state.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It's Cisco software, it won't work for at least fifteen revisions. Until then the machine it runs on will crash randomly. Your data is safer now than it was before they made this announcement.
Carpe Deez
"California Lawyer", June 1997, p 39-41 article entitled "Hacker's Secrets"
Kevin found FISA wiretaps to the Israeli, PRC, and South African enbassies. Also a bunch of lines going to the building housing the ACLU.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
there are many moral and ethical absolutes. Everyone decides what they are for themselves.
Oh my, where to begin...
How can there possibly be any ethical/moral absolutes if everyone can decide for themselves what those absolutes are? By its very definition, if a moral principle is absolute, it is true for everyone, not just those who want to accept it. You are trying to argue a contradiction here, and that simply is not rational.
For every Ghandi and King, there is a Hitler, Stalin or Saddam.
To mention Saddam Hussein in the same breath as Hitler and Stalin reveals a shocking ignorance of history and is a real insult to the memories of those who died during WWII and the Stalinist purges.
Saddam Hussein was a petty dictator who was installed and supported by the US governments at the time - when he committed the worst of his atrocities. His crimes are great, but pale in comparison to those of Hitler and Stalin.
BTW the United States was two years late in joining WWII. The government at the time viewed it as being a European issue and did not want to get involved. Do not be so quick to trot out the example of the Second World War to prove your point.
Finally, there should not be a connection between tolerance and holding firm individual opinions.
Agreed!
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Yes, it is untrue - but that does not necessarily make the statement a lie. To be a lie, there has to be an intent to deceive. I do not understand why you are failing to make the distinction in all instances.
I see no evidence that the pro-war majority has legistated unfair restictions of the antiwar minority.
If there is no legislation there can be oppression? That does not stand to reason...
The right to free speech won't do you much good if you lack the courage to open your mouth.
The whole point of free speech is not the right to agree with popular or majority opinion - it is the right to dissent! The whole issue is that if people are too afraid to speak out, the right to free speech is rather ficticious.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I don't see any value in quibbling about intent or semantics. Lie, untruth, falsehood, whatever. The poster asserted something that is untrue. Accepting your definition of "lie", he must either know that his statement is untrue, be so deceived as to actually think the U.S. is a police state, or to have, in effect, redefined the meaning of "police state" to meet his own agenda.
You seem to be arguing that majority opinion is, by definition, oppressive of those who hold other opinions. That is not the case. But, even if it was, where has the American pro-war majority actually acted to oppress the anti-war minority? And what acts of legislation have been approved to support or mandate that oppression?
The Constitution exists to protect the right to free speech. It does not exist to give someone the courage to speak. If someone has an unjustified fear of speaking, or is indifferent, or too shy, that's an emotional issue, not a political issue.
No one is "coming" for anyone in the U.S. who has simply exercised their right to speak. Join al-Qaeda, exchange bomb-making plans, raise money for organzations pledged to kill Americans, threaten and conspire to kill Americans -- those are criminal actions, not speech, and are not protected by the Constitution.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There is no reason to believe that any moral concept must be accepted by all in order to be accepted by any one individual. To believe that requires a belief that some sort of extra-human authority exists which has created the one, true, moral standard, and then hidden it from most of humanity. (Else why are there competing standards of ethics and morality?)
An individual can, and probably should, have absolute moral standards. But the fact that others will hold different, sometimes contradictory standards, shouldn't lead to an assumption that all moral standards are equivalent. Believe in what ever you believe in, but don't roll over just because you're supposed to be tolerant.
The only difference I can see between Saddam and Hitler and Stalin is in the number of people each murdered. A difference of scope, not nature. Saddam appears to have killed in the low seven figures, consideably less than Hitler and Stalin, Had the situation in Iraq more closely paralleled that of Germany or the Soviet Union, I'm sure that Saddam would have killed just as many.
Orr, are you denying that Ghandi and King would have been murdered by any one of those three barbarians?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There is no reason to believe that any moral concept must be accepted by all in order to be accepted by any one individual.
That is a fairly good definition of an absolute moral principle and there are lots of people out there who believe in them. I think the belief you are articulating is would be termed moral relativism in which each person decides for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
To believe that requires a belief that some sort of extra-human authority exists which has created the one, true, moral standard, and then hidden it from most of humanity. (Else why are there competing standards of ethics and morality?)
I am not sure that what you suggest is necessarily true. I don't think that one has to believe in some sort of supreme being as a pre-requisite to beliefs in moral absolutes. Sure, there are many people out there who do base their beliefs on their faith, but that would be a correlation and not a causal relationship.
An individual can, and probably should, have absolute moral standards. But the fact that others will hold different, sometimes contradictory standards, shouldn't lead to an assumption that all moral standards are equivalent.
Agreed.
The only difference I can see between Saddam and Hitler and Stalin is in the number of people each murdered. A difference of scope, not nature.
Again, I find that assertion incredibly lacking. Turn off CNN and get your news from a reputable source for a change. Saddam Hussein was a creation of the CIA and was openly funded by more than one US administration all of whom turned a very blind eye to the atrocities he committed while on their payroll. No foreign power was responsible for the rise of Hitler and Stalin. The crimes of Stalin exceed those of Hitler if Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's account can be believed, and Hitler's crimes were far worse than anything Saddam Hussein did because specific ethnic and religious groups were targetted for genocide simply by virtue of their membership (real or imagined) in those groups..
Hussein did commit crimes against humanity against the Kurdish minority, but most of his victims were people who were accused of being traitors to the regime. Paranoid? Absolutely, but a mere amateur when compared to the villainy of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or China during the cultural revolution.
Orr, are you denying that Ghandi and King would have been murdered by any one of those three barbarians?
I expect that Dr. King and Ghandi would have been murdered. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator with no regard for human life.
However, when compared to Hitler and Stalin, Saddam Hussein is the diet coke of evil. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is your own affair, but a more thorough reading of history would probably lead you to a different conclusion.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
You seem to be arguing that majority opinion is, by definition, oppressive of those who hold other opinions.
No, I am not. I am arguing that freedom of expression means the freedom to dissent. If you want to define freedom of expression as the freedom to agree with the majority opinion, you are certainly free to do so, but don't expect very many people to agree with that faulty definition. Nobody *has* to listen to dissenting opinions of course, but everyone should be able to speak their mind and not be intimidated into silence.
And what acts of legislation have been approved to support or mandate that oppression?
You don't need legislation! The whole "political correctness" debate took place without any legislation but it still had (and continues to have) a powerful effect. For example, it is politically correct to support the war against Iraq for the sake of supporting the troops. It is still conceivable that someone can oppose an unprovoked war against a sovereign state and support the troops. Indeed, some might go so far as to say that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home and not involve them in any illegal military operations!
I made reference to the tyranny of the majority before. You really should check that out. Moral and/or ethical issues cannot be decided by a show of hands.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
No, I'm not arguing for moral relativism, or moral absolutism either. Just stating that a lot of people seem to translate respect for the opinions of others into complete rejection of their own standards. Just because you respect another opinion doesn't mean it's correct and yours is wrong, but we seem to have a lot of people who behave that way.
.
>> However, when compared to Hitler and Stalin, Saddam Hussein is the diet coke of evil.
As far as I'm concerned, the number of people a ruler kills is irrelevant. Hitler would have been just as evil for gassing one Jew as for gassing 6 million. The evil lies in the nature of the act. Repetitive evil simply increases the scale of the act, but not it's fundamental nature. By that token, Saddam merits association with Hitler and Stalin. (Even if the U.S. did try to manipulate him during the Iran-Iraq War; also see the U.S. alliancewith Stalin dduring WWII), and even if Saddam did think the Kurds he killed were treasonous. There was honor in being treasonous to Saddam.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
OMG, this is spooky!
These people are evil. 1984 is upon us...
I'm not a lawyer here, but I think if he was convicted, it would be public.
When you are accused of something like that, if there is no conviction the records are supposed to be sealed. It's a bunch of B.S. The person that leaked that should be tried and convicted.