Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Enables Terrorist States
chill writes "Where to begin? OpenBSD Journal has a couple of update articles on the business of DARPA cancelling POSSE and OpenBSD's grant. And here is a message from Theo de Raadt, the OpenBSD big cheese, with a quote from a military spokesman. How does '...due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation-states...' grab you? Does open source and freely available security support terrorism by its very nature?"
So even if you accept the idea that security through obscurity is a necessity for such applications (a very questionable assumption at best) you can go ahead and obscure them. Where's the ache?
Absolutely. I am 100% in agreement with ErMaC. The problem is, it doesn't seem that the US government is interested in a level playing field. They, as far as I have seen, would rather subjectively choose who the bad guys are, and take away everyone's rights to catch them.
Watch me eat my own words when the homeland security act turns the US into a 1984 police state, but I think that we would be perfectly happy to live in peace with the islamic cultures in the region. problem is I dont think the feeling is mutual....
Competition in America: If you can't beat 'em, Sue 'em!
"Why don't those in charge understand that it isn't in _their_ long term interests?"
They never have and are unlikely to start now. As to why couldn't say, but I would hazard a guess that those who make the decisions have they're information fed to them through a chain of people/underlings - the info gets diluted/changed as it progresses up the chain. Result the decisions that are made are loosely related to the original information.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
All this post-9/11 paranoia is getting really ridiculous, and I can't wait till someone in power finally realizes how stupid we are being.
I think that someone was called United Nations Security Council
May the source be with you!
> This 'Homeland Security' and ferocious anti-terrorism behavior is getting seriously out of hand.. its an enormous overreaction and its starting to make the USA look very very silly.
HS is just another government agency doing nothing but to help corporate, in this case, security companies and what not (and of course, defense contractors in one way or another). The comment is silly; absolutely silly. Terrorism has nothing to do with free software or not even computers probably.
While we realize that the comment made on free software is silly, we also want (or demand) representation from major media. Why are we also not getting the info that people who say things like this are just doing their job? Why are we also not getting the info that someone says that free software is evil because his employer (true employer) wants him to say so?
First amendment; freedom of speech. Yes, everyone has a right to say what he wants to say. If one believes that free software is evil and it is the root cause of terrorism, he has the right to say so and I even defend his right. But once again, the problem that I see here is that we are not told why he is saying what he's saying, which gives people opportunity to judge whether the comment is silly or not.
Oops hit submit too early. Let's try that again.
Timothy is chipping in with his 2 cents for the Microsoft marketing drive starting tomorrow, Thursday. I really wish there were a way to block both the ads and the shills/astroturfers.
The high level of security potentially available from using OpenBSD has been named as a worry. A number of posts have mentioned the nebulus terrorist threat and touched on the effects of lobbying. When you take into account lobbying from software companies, then the other real targets are nation states like Germany.
If Germany goes with Linux, BSD, or one of the other Free or Open Source operating systems, then they remain beholden to neither Microsoft nor the White House.
If, on the other hand, F/OSS is blocked then they suffer not only financial punishment for the recent UN Security Council issues but also stay on a short leash:
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Things make much more sense when you realize that their intention is not to ensure security. Their intention is to dominate the world.
Free Software is antithetical to domination, so of course they would reject it.
Uruklink.net can still be found from google's cache. There is a "Best viewed with MSIE" phrase at the bottom of the page.
I also remember that I cheked the OS of that box on the day the war begun. Netcraft claimed it ran Solaris 8 (but surprise, surprise, can no longer find it at all), so may be the question is not just about software...
However, in February, Microsoft signed a pact with Chinese officials to reveal the Windows operating system source code. Bill Gates even hinted that China will be privy to all, not just part, of the source code its government wished to inspect.
Given the evidence suppporting Jim Allchin's testimony, the Microsoft corporation is behaving traitorously, by exposing national security issues to untrusted foreign governments.
...are still terrorists.
Whereas George Bush says: "Iraqis, we are not out to get you. We want Saddam.", Osama Bin Laden says: "We will kill you all indiscriminately to frighten you into doing what we want." i.e. TO CAUSE WIDESPREAD FEAR.
Bin Laden never said that. He's not out to "kill us all". He has defined several political goals, and has expressed a willingness to export death and violence to achieve them, in what he sees as defense of his community.
But then, so has Bush. "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation.", quoth he. This, from a man who considers himself a devout Christian.
As far as I can tell both of these men are terrorists. To hell with both of them.
"The Government on April 21 advised the University to suspend work on the "security test" portion of the project"
I would imagine any intelligence agency worth thier salt has a database of security holes they can exploit against a target of os X on hardware Y with app Z. Many of them not reported to preserve thier use for espionage.
They were probably pissed off when they suddenly found themselves funding the closure of security holes they paid to have found and hoped to use in the future.
Maybe Theo got it all wrong. They were actually hoping Theo and his pals would just get drunk with the money and piss about, rather then fix those pesky security holes. The money was really ment to be free as in beer!
While this explanation is somewhat lacking and terse, it does not say "Open Source Enables Terrorist States". I didn't know what the "security fest" portion was, so I did some googling, but didn't find anything obvious. Just the same, there's a very tangible difference between deciding to not fund an open-source-related security-related project and deciding that open source is terrorism. Maybe we could get a little more information before going hog wild with the paranoid fears?
To be sure, it does sound pretty darn paranoid, but I'm dealing with third-party information that seems designed to be inflammatory. And inflame it did.
Also, while I don't believe in security through obscurity as a general principle (which is implied here), there are still a number of people, even some Slashdot readers, who follow the principle in some respects. For example, the large number of people who get upset when some releases an exploit without contacting the vendor first.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some other reasons why the grant was pulled (or not given?), but again, I'm lacking information.
But, by all means, go crazy with what little information you do have!
How come the National Riffle Association isn't considered to facilitate terrorism? I mean, if developing and using OSS facilitates terrorism, what about promoting free possesion and use of firearms?
You don't fight terrorism with bombs. Although the people at the top may very well be "truly evil" and only out for power (by causing terror), the ones that actually perform these acts are most of the time simply misguided and brainwashed. The best way to fight such organisations is to make sure they don't get new recruits, since the leaders aren't that stupid to hijack a plane themselves and fly it into a building. For that, they use cannon fodder.
By waging wars like this, the US government gives these terrorist organisations extra ammo they can use to justify what they claim is their cause and to convince more people to join their ranks. They do not weaken them, they only strengthen them. This in turn may lead to even worse attacks, which then again can be used by the US gov't to justify even larger scale retaliations. You can't scare someone who is prepared to kill himself with display of military power.
You have to convince people that it's not worth it, that you aren't the big bad superstate that the terrorists make of you. If you do that, they may actually start to help you in the fight against terrorism. And you won't get millions of people protesting against the US around the world either.
Sorry, but the US gov't doesn't give shit about this. They even actively support a number of those. All they care about is power. When it suits them, the US supports them, when they become too annoying for some reason, the US will bring out their dirty laundry and bomb them into oblivion, with or without the UN's consent.Donate free food here
How about foreign policy? A foreign policy based on force -- like any initiation of force -- is guaranteed to create resentment. Does any of us actually believe that the family members, friends, and neighbors of those slaughtered by the US government are thinking to themselves, "you know, even though my brother was murdered by the US government, I still support what the US government is doing to our country"? Do you think these innocent victims buy into the lie of "collateral damage" that we're all supposed to believe like good little citizens?
I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you...
Doesn't this actually support the person you're responding to? He implied that by raising the status of ALL people, we'd work to eliminate terrorism by reducing things such as ignorance and poverty.
You say that discontent is rooted in comparison. What would happen if we all looked around, and when comparing things like money or education, we all came out about the same? Would that not reduce or eliminate discontent, and hence terrorism?
I think the goal should not be 'make us all the same'; that's socialism, and with the resources available to many countries, that just makes everybody poor and, hence, discontent. But by working on things that benefit EVERYBODY, we can hope to raise the bar for all. When everybody in the world is the same, and they're all 'rich'... I don't see many reasons for terrorism.
I believe that you would be hard-pressed to defend that statement. If you could go to all the poor regions of the world and magically increase the people's education and bolster the economic structure of the region... I think you'd solve a ton of problems.
I solidly disagree, but that's not the point. It appears that your religious/spiritual views have gotten mixed in with a logical discussion.
Doug
Wouldn't terrorists just as easily pirate commercial software. I don't see how free software would make things any easier for terrorists who, by their very nature, would have no moral qualms with pirating commercial software. Seriously, are terrorists going to print their newsletters in OpenOffice or a pirated copy of Word?
> Does open source and freely available security support terrorism by its very nature?
/. in general - indicate), proponents of open source are in their vast majority on the far left of the political spectrum. And in the recent century, ESPECIALLY recent 20 years, left wing has been a lot more supportive of terrorism - on all levels - than right wing. Please note that i'm not saying that every individual open souce developer supports terrorism. Just that as a mass, their combined views help terorists, whether the people hlding them intend to or not.
1) Software is a tool, like any tool it supports whatever goal (freedom or terrorism) the user of the tool supports.
2) HOWEVER, open source *community*, unfortunately, supports terrorism by nature. No this is not a troll, so please don't moderate as such even if you disagree with my political views. Hear me out and if you disagree, tell me why my logic is at fault.
Why is it so? Because (as most comments in this thread - or on
- Financial support. Yes, I know that CIA financed Mujaheddin. But socialist countries (openly admired by many on the left) have supported/created almost every other terrorist organization out there, and i'm not even mentioning that most of those organizations are officially "marxist", or "socialist", or otherwise left-wing.
- Political support. Whether or not you are pro-Israel or anti-Israel, ONLY those on the left wing have ever issued any statements other than condemning murder of innocent civilians without any attempt to justify them. Those one the left range from "we will condemn them only after they stop occupation" to "it is a valid weapon in the fight against stronger foe".
The same exact pattern repeated itself after 9/11 towards US. Those on the left often view terrorism as an excusable method of doing things.
- Opposition to anti-terrorism. Ranging from general "anti-US-ianism", to opposing any forceful method to stop terrorists because you don't condone forceful methods. Willingness to believe every word Saddam's Information Ministry said over what US press reported (no offense, but having lived in USSR - which was far freeer than Iraq - all I can say to those who think so is taht they are dumb morons with no clue as to reality of the world).
If you don't believe what I just said on in the second point (about political support), or the third one, just read comments in this article carefully.
-DVK
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
Anything you can think of "empowers terrorists", likewise, anything you can think of restricts terrorists...
Examples:
Computers - crypto, word processing, virtual reality games, training videos, etc. - all can be used by terrorists for their nefarious purposes, or can be used by the "good guys" for their purposes... Do we now ban computers? Nope...
Vehicles - gasoline, diesel, oil, etc. Used to transport good guys to whack bad guys... Used by bad guys to transport their stuff to try and whack the good guys... Do we now ban vehicles? Nope...
Chemicals - used by everyone in some way or another for something... Do we ban these? nope...
I guess what I'm getting at is that banning 'things' because they 'might' be used by a terrorist in commission of some terrorist act is asinine. You could ban *EVERYTHING* and the terrorists would still have use of their body parts to attack with - what then?
The only way to resolve the problem is to innovate. And I don't just mean weapons - how about actually figuring out what the craziness is being caused by and negotiate it out?