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?"

Comments

Real target is developed nations (2nd try)

[SgtChaireBourne]

By nature, terrorists obviously aren't going to obey any laws... much less SOFTWARE LICENSES. This makes Windows a FREE OS.

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.

• *BSD / GPL licenses ensure freedom in how the systems are used and deployed
• Security + source code audits ensure that data and systems are less vulnerable to foreign control / monitoring.
• Development money spent on F/OSS drives the local economy.

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:

• WPA ensures that MS/Bush can pull the plug
• DRM + EUCD + proprietary file formats keeps them on the leash
• Weak security and possible backdoors ensures that any resistance can be countered/monitored electronically.

Re:This is getting crazy..

[Ian Bicking]

Don't confuse the United States with the right wing and criminal clique that have taken power. But I don't mean to excuse the US in this way, and I certainly don't want that to make you feel more calm about what's going on...

This 'Homeland Security' and ferocious anti-terrorism behaviour is getting seriously out of hand.. its an enormous overreaction and its starting to make the USA look very very silly.

Silly? Oh, they'd like you to think that. They hide behind what seems like absurdity, when in fact it's just their disingenuous justifications that are absurd -- their actual actions are calculated and devious, their intentions sinister.

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.

Then Microsoft must be guilty of GRAND TREASON

[NZheretic]

Last May, under oath at the antitrust hearing Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms at Microsoft, stated that because the Windows operating system was so flawed, disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort.

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.

Terrorists in suits

[jdfox]

...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.

Did anyone actually read Theo's post?

[Daniel Quinlan]

His post included this (now third-hand) quote from a DAPRA spokesperson:

I wanted to update you on the situation with the Univ of Penn. project. As a result of the DARPA review of the project, and due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation-states, the Government on April 21 advised the University to suspend work on the "security fest" portion of the project.

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!