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?"
The beauty of real, open source, free software is that it empowers EVERYONE. Be they good, bad, or ugly, everyone is given access to the same kind of benefits. On the one hand, of course this empowers terrorists. But then again so does encryption research. Should we ban encryption? I'm sure the MPAA would have things to say about that.
Open Source gives everyone an equal stake. Just because the enemy gets the same benefits doesn't mean we should stop. We're already "more powerful" than them - how will this uneven the playing field any more than it already is?
"I want to get more into theory, because everything works in theory." -John Cash
I run Linux.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
By nature, terrorists obviously aren't going to obey any laws... much less SOFTWARE LICENSES. This makes Windows a FREE OS.
And with Microsoft's latest effort to try to make their OS's as "secure" as possible, shouldn't all these people picking on opensource be targeting Microsoft as well, since they are now SECURE?
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.
SuPz.orG
Wouldn't terrorist organizations by their vary nature ignore the laws which would prevent them from pirating closed source software? And while a BSD variant will generally be more secure, i'm sure that security doesn't pose much of a threat to the intelligence gather organizations of the US.
I'm tired of bombing the universe
So the .mil is concerned that OpenBSD (And I assume by extension, OpenSSH) gives nation states the ability to use high grade encryption, and that would make their job of spying on these states difficult. In this day and age, you can't be all that surprised. Good encryption is almost as important as good weapons, and I doubt that DARPA would fund the development and distribution of blueprints for laser guided mortar rockets or armor piercing assult rifles.
.mil can't crack your GPG or SSH keys easily!
Its still seems to be a bit of a knee jerk reaction though. Does DARPA not expect that development of encryption systems will continue with or without their money?
On the upside, that would seem to indicate that the
Honestly this is starting to get out of hand. I really don't mean this in a 'bashing' way, but the United States really needs to take a step back and look at what the hell it is doing to itself.
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.
I totally appreciate that the threat of terrorism is real, and I believe that we must take measures to protect ourselves.. but offending and mistreating people of other countries & backgrounds is not the way to do it.
yes a hammer can
build a terrorist building
it can build a church
or a hospital too
are we to stop selling hammers
to weed out terrorism?
back in the day we didnt have no old school
This is comparable to our brand-spanking new Department of Homeland Security calling Wireless Networks a "terrorist technology".
Personally, I'd rather have open source software running on all important computers - that way we can check to make sure that things are done right, rather than have to trust in proprietary source code churned out by the monkeys at MS. I feel more threatened by the unknown than by the free.
I subscribe to a belief expressed best by Benjamin Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".
------
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" --George W. Bush, in Jan. 2000
Horse
Cart
If nation-states are planing terrorist activities, it has already been shown that they do not need free operating systems or software to execute its plans.
A terrorist group will perform it's act regardless of OS.
CJC
What else? Everything, bombs, and fists!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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?
Bad people use technology to do bad things.
"Does open source and freely available security support terrorism by its very nature?"
So, you mean to tell me that we can trust closed source companies whose primary motivation is the almighty dollar?
I know that most companies are not *that* evil, but how about the case where a company insider shares *important information* with a terrorist resource? Or the case of a sale of software and a license for "shared source" to a company that could be a front for a terrorist organization?
And will the government be willing to put in the necessary oversight to make sure that these companies don't spill the wrong beans? And, given how politics and lobbying go, can a company influence the government the wrong way (intentionally or unintentionally) to avoid this oversight?
I don't know if open source is inherently supportive of terrorism. I couldn't really tell you. But there are too many questions involved when you argue that closed source should be the only way when it comes to security.
This sounds like another effort to promote "security through obscurity" as the only way to go. I guess they could sue if someone breaks that method of security.
You are a bit behind the rest of the world...
Everybody already thinks like this.
nosig today
Do the word 'terrorism' apply killing thousands of innocent people under bombs in Iraq or does this apply only when killing thousands of innocent people under planes in USA ??
This might be the stupidest thing I've heard all week...
How about guns? Terrorists use guns...is our military going to stop using guns too?
How about toilet paper? Do any terrorists use toilet paper? If so, will our GIs start receiving the Sears catalog instead?
With Open Source software "they" can not put in back doors, sinffers, etc. because *everyone* has access to the code. At least, that's what I think is driving things behind the scenes. /me polishes tinfoil hat.
... due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable military empires, the University on April 22 advised the Government to suspend work on the "command and conquer" portion of its foriegn policy.
If it can not be controlled, it must be destroyed.
Its time to stop cowering in the corner from the terrorist "boogey man". Every week there is a new hot button item that promotes terrorism. The general media and governement in the united states seams to want the people to be afraid of everything. Why is it that your governmet has the money to produce this very vague early wrning system but no money for health care. What exactly is a orange alert. Your leaders come on televison and say that you should be scared because somewhere, sometime, something bad is going to happen, stop living in fear and start living your lives. Get out there live your lives, enjoy them and go watch bolwing of columbine it will change they way you think.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective with what users it wants to be friendly with.
It's an uncomfortable truth that complete suppression of terrorism requires complete suppression of freedom. If we want to maintain our freedom, we'll have to combat the fear of terrorism every bit as strongly as we fight terrorism itself. We'll have to risk that our promotion of freedom will at some points allow terrorism to operate. In a word, we need courage. But if we depend entirely upon our government and military to be courageous for us, we're already far along the road to losing our liberty.
come on, where does it stop. the world is evil! It's a fundamental rule. Evil will always be with us. For anyone to say that they can stop evil is lunacy. you cannot stop evil without becomming evil yourself.
Americans need to wake up and realize that the world is not nice like on TV. Bad guys win usually! People are vice-ridden, mean-spirited, selfish souls in general. to put the bible-pounding hat on a minute, After the whole antichrist thing is over earth will have 1000 years of peace! Then evil will be allowed back into the world and a huge percent of the population will follow it after living under a perfect government!!
Bad things will happen, it is a fact. The question is: Do we live cowering in fear with an oppressive government saping our streangth like in Iraq, or do we live freely, in the open, allowing some enemies to knock us down, but with the streangth in the people to get back up again and again!!
as opposed to the al-qaeda member with the CD burner and a pirate copy of windows XP...
--- Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit? | Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Police states rarely have terrorism problems.
... ... the ...
I suppose if we want to be less free, we can give up open source.
And libraries.
And criticizing the President.
And the right to freedom from arbitrary searches.
And equal justice regardless of national origin.
And the right to be charged with a crime instead of being held indefinitely.
And the
oh, CRAP.
We're screwed.
--Kynn
ObPlug: Political ranting from me at Shock & Awe, and tech stuff at Maccessibility
Kynn's page: http://kynn.com/
Most people seem to think this means they think free software "enables" people to do things (with it.) My take on this is the following: they're concerned with funding a project mostly developed by...whoever wishes to develop it. It's hard for a government agency to justify funding a project that employs people from all over the world when we're in a paranoid state of mind and seeing terrorists under every bed (hey, it was communists a few decades ago...and that even rhymes with terrorists!) I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOD fund their own internal use branch of an open source OS, exclusively developed by a tightly knit group of security-cleared people (and effectively making the branch closed source.) It's not so much about who'll use the software...it's more about who'll have their hands in developing it. A pretty stupid way of looking at a system that everyone gets a chance to proofread and debug, but no one has ever accused the military of being smart.
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their smog statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave L.A. to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feministic atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are democrats.
10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
12. Slashdot is read by people that don't bother reading 1 thru 11.
welcome into Soviet America!
There is a naive notion going around that hiding your secrets is a proper way to do security. This makes sense to many people because they are making assumptions about how well things are hidden and how "secret" secrecy really is.
I think of it the same way that I think of airport screening. Since the terrorists were arabs, the naive solution to finding terrorists is to simply stop every arab man woman and child and be done with it. It makes sense, right? Forget all the claims to political correctness, and think about it "logically". If the terrorists are all arabs, then by searching all arabs then you will be securing your airplanes, right?
Wrong, of course. Becuase you can't search 100% of the people, by selecting a non-random group you will be searching, all it would require is to find a single non-arab terrorist and the next thing you know a plane is crashing into Los Angeles.
This same naive logic is what makes windows look so secure. Because you can't see teh source, of course you can't find the holes, right? If the holes can be exploited, they eventually will be, and if they are really subtle, then only a select group of really hard-core bad guys will know about it, and YOU are probably not in that select group. You will never know that they are currently controlling your network, becuase the chance of you finding that hole and knowing to patch it is nil.
By the current (and unelected) US administration's definition, pretty much anything anyone does is considered a terrorist activity... except for terrorizing French people and people that have the gall to excersize their rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of/from religion and pretty much anything else that gives people like George Bush and John Ashcroft bad dreams and acid reflux.
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
and Microsoft giving the source code to Windows to the Chinese government is a bake sale
God Fucking Damnit
Doh! That won't work either!
...
...
Ummmm.
Throw any Muslims off maths courses
Doh!
Retrieve every programming manual and any Math paper that might possibly help terrorists.
Doh!
Don't let any non-Americans have computers, calculators, pens or paper
Doh!
I know! Eat some apple pie and bomb the bastards!
Yeah! Solution.
> 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.
The US now has a huge disconnect, both in terms of what it thinks of itself and what it feeds its own population. The longer this goes on, the more they will scare you into accepting their patriot acts. Meanwhile across the world, it has become hated and no doubt people will remember and gang up against the US whenever they can.
Propaganda, simple associative logic, and little or no reason has pervaded the public debate for a while. Meanwhile thinkers, people a society should respect, are getting branded leftists, antipatriotic or at worst - terrorists.
Free societies have a right to free opinion, and cases like this only go to prove that freedom in the US is an illusion. States tody are becoming a veneer, a thin peel of illusion laid out over the collective eye to help the companies and businesses that control this illusion make millions.
The Bush administration remains a shallow president and the greatest threat to the US till date. His policies will, and have, stoked the worst fires of the middle east. The harvest of this will be seen across the world; sudden mad acts of terror will continue to plague countries that are seen as allies for years to come.
On the whole, the US govt does seem quick to justify stupid acts like withdraw funding for BSD. I, nor do a lot of others, see the connection. Why this anonymous post? Well i have no intention of joing the brotherhood of victims that are on parade now.
Hope sense prevails.
if you want to catch terrorists, there are two ways:
The second method may have one disadvantage: You may find a terrorist where none has been before looking. This is like a self fullfilling prophecy. By declaring people to be terrorists you can make them to be.
Serious: I'm more scared by the changes to the political systems than by the Al-Quaida. The "war on terror" has become a convenient handle (also in europe) to push for changes that have unacceptable before. The result may be the destruction of our ideals (a free society) in the name to defending them.
Yours, Martin
P.S. My definition of terrorist is "someone who is using violence against civilians with the goal to use the resulting scare/horror to force them into an action they wouldn't do by free will". This definition has become very unpopular after WWII because it included too many winners.
I think that a few people here could benefit from some history lessons. Not necessarily because it would prove their views wrong, but because it might make their views a little more plausible.
There is nothing particularly new about this sort of policy. The US has for a long time done its best to suppress certain types of research, keep certain research results secret, and keep certain types of technology out of the hands of hostile powers. All three of these policies have been *very* effective in maintaining the military superiority of the US, and in slowing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. With respect to all three of these weapon types, and a host of other fields of technology with military applications, other nations are still struggling to replicate research that the US carried out 50 years ago.
So, when people say that "this kind of policy never works", the military guys are going to say "BS, its been working for 50 years." When people say that "it just harms research in the US", the military guys are going to say "well sometimes it is more important to stay ahead of the other guy, than to just get ahead". When people say that "research will just progress faster in other countries" the military guys will just point to 50 years of the US successfully staying ahead of everyone else.
Objecting that such policies are *in general* a bad idea is not going to impress anyone who actually has a clue. At the very least you need to show that there is something special about software technology that will prevent these policies from working. You will have a hard time of course because these policies have already been applied to software for decades.
Now the problem with open source is that there is no way to control it, so there is no way to implement the kind of policy outlined above, except to kill it (or discourage it), and have everyone use closed source, which can be controlled to a significant degree. If you want to persuade the Feds not to do this then you will need to come up with some sort of argument for why open source is worthwhile, even though it can't be controlled. The arguments mentioned above are not going to cut it, so someone had better think of better arguments before the Feds decide to give M$ a free hand in implementing trusted (read controllable) computing.
US officials report that their weapon inspectors have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's an Apache server.
"This is VERY strong evidence", says the cheif Inspector. "They could use this server to calculate ballistic paths of shells like we did with ENICAC in WW2. And these shells can be LOADED with chemical and biological agents".
In other news:
A group in Sweden has filed a request to their government to initiate "Operation American freedom".
"Yes it's true, and we are considering this", says a high swedish official. They have a very weak democratic system. The last election was a joke. They still have the death penalty, that we banned two centuries ago. They have nukes and chemical weapons and they do not follow the UN recommedations, but invade other contries at their own discretion.
"I know we are a small peace loving country with limited military resources, but we have to do this. This nation is a threat. And with determination and creative behind enemy lines warfare we will see this through. The American people deserve their freedom. I know many Americans say they dont want to be set free this way because many innocent Americans will die, but they have been blinded by their enslavement. This evil Bush regime must come to an end and their weapons of mass destruction (Like Apache servers) must be eliminated.
The Vikings will set the American people free. We feel obliged by future generations and god(Thor with the hammer).
Cheers. Patrix, Sweden
Jesus Christ! What the hell is wrong with the GWB administration? France opposed the war with Iraq because on the grounds that there is no sufficient evidence that Iraq has not destroyed its WMDs - and now after the war, the evidence is still missing! So far France seems to have been right and these morons are still intent on "punishing" the France for trying to prevent this unjustified, unilateral war (the true motives, of course, were regime change, oil and GWB's personal issues with religion and his daddy).
BOO! TERRO
open development of technologies leads to the bad guys getting a leg up on the good guys
Windows suddenly sounds less evil when then told me Open Source assists terrorists.
Someone told me Open Source rapes pregnant women and molests children in the street too. We've got closed-source proprietary software wrong all these years.
God saves us
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.
Here it is, it's short and out of context, but it's also the entire quote provided by Theo:
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.
Now where does it say in that "open source is bad"? Could it be that the government has decided other threats are more immediate to address with DARPA's limited budget? I mean, we know Theo has never stirred up shit for the fun of it. </SARCASM>
Probably most of the US funded ones do (IRA, contras etc.) but the Muslim ones no doubt carry small watering cans into the toilet to wipe their bums with. And get it (the water) all over the floor. Argh!
not under the Patriot (insert here the version in roman characters) Act!
If the US wants to stop terrorists getting hold of bad things, then the various US government agencies should stop selling them!
Could you please send the statue of Liberty back to old Europe? I've heard it's feeling awfully depressed these days....
"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!
trying to get 'one over' on the enemy's intelligence has always been a way for researchers to do the impossible; remember the enigma machine? they said that was impossible to crack and was of grave danger, but if the secret services had taken such a defeated attitude (which they did actually; until a polish genius showed them it was likely) would they have gotten that upper hand on the advancing nazi army? i think not...
even the claim that terrorists use open source software (especially really geeky and amazing stuff like OpenBSD) is a complete joke... i come form northern ireland and i can assure you that the sight of a computer only rings bells of "how much can i sell that on for?" in the hearts of terrorists. (oh wait! arnt we the perfect model for peace and we dont have terrorists anymore, silly me...)
yet again america needs to get a grip on itself and take a good dose of reality...
After the bombing of the FBI building in Oklahoma, I was in Arkansas talking with a good old fashioned, gun owning red neck. He told me in a hushed voice, "You know, I wouldn't want to live in a country where you couldn't do something like that".
Being that the kind of controls required to stop such things would be so over the top, we would have no freedoms at all. Looks like the goverment is heading this way.
My gawd whats next, closing libraries!
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
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?
I don't know of ANY conflict where terorrist groups have been involved where the terror has stopped or been significantly limited through the first two options. Even in cases where an entire terrorist organization have been obliterated, as long as the underlying issues are still there new people take their places. It may take time, but it's happened over and over again.
Not only in third world countries - Britain tried to crush the IRA for decades. It was first through peaceful negotiation that the IRA got enough pressure from Irish republicans to stop it's violence, leaving only fringe groups with minimal popular support to deal with.
If the US keeps on down it's slippery slope towards totalitarianism, you won't need terrorists to feel unsafe - the government will be more than enough.
Exactly! You can't fight lack of education and desperation with guns and bombs, unless you plan on committing genocide. Try education, understanding, communication. Those are the "weapons" in a ware against terrorism. What scares me the most is my WHOLE LIFE I'll be dealing with backlash from the current administration, and my children will be suffering the damage done to education and world relations.
Obviously highly secure systems, like cryptography, are relatively immune to software/network based attacks. This is why it was illegal for so long. But it is too late, the crypto cat has jumped out of the bag.
Now, the battle is not for keys but for control of the OS so that spying can take place before things get encrypted. The government seems to be saying their infowar capabilities depend on buffer overflows and script-kiddie-like activities in commonly used software which scares me! It makes me think the government has suddenly discovered that keeping the least common denominator very insecure and well identifiable (i.e. porous networks, weakened keys, GUIDs, 0wned operating systems, closed source security) will make it easier for them to catch enemy agents.
This means there is a danger that the U.S. government will also find it is in its best interests to subvert as much software as possible. Still feel safe with those RPMs? How about that up2date agent there? Is the Microsoft software update agent meant to keep users safe, or to enable surveillance?
The government seems to feel it is not in its interest to promote secure practices, lest it lock itself outside of the henhouse. I don't see how anyone can help but suspect duplicity to some degree when using commercial closed operating systems (MS Windows) given the government's current stated intent of removing all potential weapons and sharp corners from circulation.
The answer is that anyone can use open source software, not just terrorists, and the availability of high quality secure software is more important for maintaining freedom from persecution than is the need to protect against terrorists. There are constitutional problems with the current attempts by the U.S. to turn back the clock.
This may or may not have anything to do with it... but Theo apparently has made a bunch of anti-war comments to the media, to the tune that he hoped his grant was taking funding away from the US-led war effort in Iraq. here a link... and here's another
Now, I'm not here to say that Theo's not entitled to his opinions; he unquestionably IS entitled to them. I would point out, however, that it's not a good idea to publicly bite the hand that's feeding you. By injecting a political viewpoint into this grant, Theo put the DARPA folks in a quandry, and while it may have had nothing to do with the grant cancellation, it certainly did NOT help matters.
Focus on coding and doing what you love (if it's all about the software). I'm not saying high-profile people can't have opinions... they just need to be careful about where they voice them, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if they use their position to advocate a viewpoint (ask Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins about that). It's not wrong to speak up... you've just got to be ready to deal with the fallout.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
A Constitutional Democracy of the people oppressed by a Capitalist Republic sect. Separation of government and religion is Constitutionally mandated (somewhat ignored), but separation of state and business/industry.
Many politicians and business people insist that getting government out of business is vital to the national interest, but (I believe) getting business out of government is vital to the destiny of humanity.
A Capitalist (oligarchic) republic "can be" just as absurd and cruel to humanity as an Islamic (religious) republic. Both are oppressive to humanity.
I support Democratic government, Capitalist economy, and Individual freedom and equality of rights.
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I don't think palestinians have computers, let alone use open source software. And even if they did, they are entitled to, since software is neither good nor bad by itself. And even if they use open source, how can they harm us ? I don't see the connection. What they would do to harm us ? any code contribution filled with back doors will be caught in the blink of an eye. It is silly to claim that the use of open source software by terrorist groups makes the software bad.
:-)
On the other hand, we have rogue nations. But the analogy is the same as with terrorist groups. Even if these nations use OSS to power their research or to drive their missiles, I still can't understand how that makes OSS bad. They can use illegal copies of Microsoft Windows...would that make Windows bad software (TM) ?
Maybe the gentleman that said so has connections with a big non-OSS company(*cough* MS *cough*). It's not unusual to find ties between businessmen and high-ranking military personnel. After all, the bussiness deals of the Pentagon are worth millions, and software is involved in most of these projects(gone are the days of simple mechanical devices, everything is software-driven).
Another possible explanation is that some important people don't want poor countries to be developed, and OSS surely helps towards that direction. Poor countries means cheap labour, exploitation of natural resources and low prices, big profit for them.
What else shall we hear about open source, I wonder...some people can't stomach the fact that something so valuable is given for free...damn you Linus!!!
.. is that this comes from the samer people who sold Iraq chemical weapons and now are running to try to get thyem back. Hilarious to me! Really! Yeah, I know, it's not that hilarious because it's stupid and makes us think how stupid is army. Gladly I'm a brazilian!
Hell, totalitarian regimes benefit from the easy availability of light pickup trucks that can be used as assault vehicles. Better stop making them.
I bet Craftsman tools are sometimes used in making pipe bombs. Better stop making wrenches, and for that matter, pipe. It's enabling technology.
This is just another step by technophobes to try to slow down stuff they don't understand. It's really starting to bug me.
Well after reading the recent stories on Cisco adding back doors to allow law enforment agencies to snoop on network traffic, it really seems that the US government doesn't want anyone to be able to communicate without their being able to snoop. It really makes me wonder if snooping functionality is already in Windows? I'm sure the government has already asked for it. How else could you explain the anti-trust lawsuite going away so easily? If Windows already has government snooping capabilities built in, then it's in the governments best interest to keep Microsoft dominent on the desktop. ... Or have I seen one too many episodes of the X Files?
for terrorists to use Windows (probably have some back doors built in for them to use). With Open Source, they can't have a back door because it would be quickly found. With obscurity, it will take longer to find and when it is found it's just a "bug".
I mean, you could almost argue that most things could, in some sense or fashion 'support terrorism'.
Let's face it, there is no way to possibly live in peace around the world. I mean, who would want to? Think of how incredibly boring life would be if there was absolutely nothing happening anywhere. BORING! I mean, think about a visit to the doctor's office and how it is in the waiting room, noone talking, no real noise, just sitting there waiting quietly. People do it because they have to and you think people in this world would actually live their lives that way? It just simply won't happen, as much as we might like it to.
Get used to how things are, because it's only going to get worse...
Perhaps we should outlaw wrenches because without wrenches you could not build a car, a car that ultimately could be used as a car-bomb.
Software is a tool, much like a wrench or screwdriver. It has no morality, it is neither good or bad (in the moral sense, we all know there is bad software out there). The people that use it determine wether it is being used for good or evil. If product "A" is not available, they will simply move to product "B" and get the same results.
I know I am stepping slightly away from the article here but...
Frankly, I suspect that it was only a matter of time before someone started to equate terrorisim and open-source software. Not because they are related at all but simply because the P.R. budget for open source software does not have the funds available to defend against the allegation.
It is up to individual orginizations (be they governments, companies, schools, or rotary clubs) to determine what they want to fund. If they conclude that they may be funding something an orginization that they fundamentally oppose could profit from the project they are funding, it is certainaly their right to pull the funding.
I have to wonder how the seeds of this decision were planted. Did a company approach them and say "Look, you are builing something that you have no idea how it will be used and are placing it in the hands of your enemy?" If so, perhaps the company's motive wasn't so pure. Perhaps there is a profit motive that influenced the decision? That I may have a problem with and from where I sit, it seems likely.
Read the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College elects the president. The state legislatures are responsible for selecting their representatives to the Electoral College. Nowhere does it say that the president is elected by popular vote.
The state legislatures have mostly decided that they will select Electoral College representatives (Electors) based on the results of a popular vote within their state. If the popular vote fails for whatever reason, it is still the constitutional responsibility of the state legislatures to select Electors.
The popular vote is not the key to the presidential election. That misconception has been deliberately promulgated by the Democrats. The Electoral College system will not be changed in the foreseeable future and the Democrats have not helped their constituents by encouraging them to misunderstand the process.
When special forces got into iraq and Afghanistan, they did not find Linx, or BSD, or any other open source OS's. They found WINDOWS.
At least people making comments like this could do a little research first.
Does open source and freely available security support terrorism by its very nature?
Yes, it supports terrorism just like other things that terrorists use to live and do their jobs. Things like clothing, telephones, buses, automobiles, closed source software, money, knives, guns, school classrooms, etc.
Any intelligent person will recognize that free and open source software is only one of many tools that a terrorist might use; it is not some critical key or linchpin in their nefarious schemes.
Few people are really willing to think clearly about what the real roots of terrorism are and how best to address those causes.
However, on a bright note, it certainly is some kind of vote of confidence in free and open source software that authorities in the U.S. government think it will be too useful to terrorists. That fear, even though it is exaggerated, is still an answer to the question:
Next thing you know some radical will be claiming that free and open source software will be useful to businesses, governments and individuals, too.What will come of society if that happens.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Finally a voice of freaking reason on this subject!
For those of you who haven't been in charge of a DARPA contract, there are very specific rules on how money can be spent. There is some speculation that Theo's hack-a-thon violated these rules, so the 'Work Stop Order' came down as a response. It most likely has nothing to do with terrorists, open source, anti-war statements, or beer.
Good god, people! All of this attention is NOT going to benefit these kinds of projects in the future!
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Here's the way it works: anything that the terrorists can use to aid in their attack is hereby no longer supported by the US Government. Take plants, for example.
You see, plants possess the ability to produce oxygen, which terrorists use to breathe. As they are breathing, they have a tendency to attack the United States. Therefore, plants are obviously a threat to national security. This explains why the US refuses to sign the Kyoto treaty. They've also begun to burn every national forest, and are paying lesser nations (through devious trade agreements) to destroy all the rain forests in the world.
Down with plants! They are the tools of the enemy!!
--Mid
For those who still are not clear on america's (the gov't, the media, corporations, and anyone else wanted to sway the popular opinion of Joe "I hates them 'ragheads' what done blowed up our tow'rs" Public.) current favorite propaganda tool, it works like this.
1. Target subject
2. Relate subject to terrorism, no matter how irrevelant or ridiculous or completely unfounded the relation may be.
3. Watch majority of public fall in line (while small intelligent yet insignificant portion realizes your smear campaign is complete bullshit.)
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
Accepting a man's money, you are beholden to him and eventually accept his ideology. Similarly, those who take government grants are in a clear danger of (and I would argue obligation to) this.
... an Empire.
Those who support the government or takes its money or favors will eventually be called upon to support the Imperial model.
De Raadt and his people may find themselves in need of financial support, but they can't continue to avoid submission to this ideology.
... and it's still possible to do so without encountering a lynch mob.
... until Corporate American lawyers make their case in the courts that Open Source material is a de facto violator of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The USA government is currently into transformation of a Republic into a world power
Once the meta-phrase "supports terrorism" was used in relation to their work, no official, judge or jury will help their case. Obviously, by my tone here, I think that de Raadt and his crew should ditch their naivete about the matter and separate themselves from the Empire's demands. It's still legal to develop software for anyone to use
P.S. It's still legal
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
This is representative of the change in American outlook in the last 30 or so years and even more so under this current administration.
Specifically, there are two main points that have changed dramatically from the ideals of the forefathers.
America was founded on the principle that the little guy can beat the big guy and equality for all. The idea that the government should support rising individuals over the large groups. This is evident by the anti-monopoly acts and also the basic tenets of Democracy.
As someone else had mentioned in, America is no longer a democracy, rather an Empire. We [as in the administration] often talks about supporting democracy worldwide, however, in actions, we support oppression and dictatorship over the choice of the people. Throughout the last 30 or so years, there are numerous examples of this. Even now, are we going to let the Iraqi people have a democracy? According to recent reports, the Iraqis want a Islamic government.
Now you are wondering how this relates to the article. Because of this mentality, we [the administration] want to be able to have direct control of everything. This is contrary to the open source mentality. In open source development, no one person has direct control over the development. Even if there is, people can branch off and do there own thing.
The American government likes the large corporations like the Microsofts of the world. If they want something done, there is a single point of communication. If they don't like something, there is a person/group that you can go to.
I'm sorry, I was going to analyze this further, but don't have time right now..
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Nice to know the ACLU is there to defend de Raadt's Constitutional right to taxpayer money.
Wow, dude, you've got a lot of hatred welled up right there. You know, when people are forced, through brainwashing or other means, to believe something that can't be backed up by facts, they usually respond to differing opinions with the piss and vinegar stated above.
French people are disgusting cowards.
Ahh, yes, respond with childish name calling, how quaint.
Those pieces of shit desecrating the graves of the brave souls who laid down their lives
Who is desecrating whose graves? I don't understand.
whom they considered a close personal friend (why else would they have so fully supported the nazi regime, fucking cunts.)
Close personal friend? Fully supported? Wow, some people will believe any of the spewage that comes off Fox News these days. Here's an idea, go check some history books, and not ones written recently by neo-con pundits. I'm talking about factual history, here, not revisionist history. Oh, and more name calling. You're showing your IQ here, careful!
Why don't people like the guy above ever whine about Germany? I mean, didn't they, too, oppose this war? I don't hear anyone wanting to rename the "Hamburger". Or, maybe it's that the neo-cons might have to give up driving their BMW's and Benz's. Why just France? Is it that maybe some people just have a deep seated hatred of France, and now feel it's open season?
To sum up, fuck France, and fuck you hippie.
Yes, that's nice, thank you.
That being said, I support your right to spout your ignorant comments and remind you that a lot of blood has been shed to protect that right.
You don't support my right to free speech, people that disagree with the president are trying to protect your right to free speech! That's all a lot of talk to make yourself look a teensy bit better after that diatribe. You don't understand even the basic concepts of free speech. If you did, you might stop to consider the reasons why so many people, hippie and yuppie, left AND right, regardless of race or economic status, do not support this war. And if you want to talk about bloodshed, yes, a lot has spilled to protect our rights, but a lot has also been spilled to protect the rights of oil companies. Have you noticed that nothing at all has changed in Iraq since before the bombs started falling? Except maybe the fact that more buildings have been destroyed. You just wait another 5-10 years, you'll see that Iraq is no freer, and yet another dictator will be in place under the supervision of the US. Diplomacy was working, the inspections were working, but good ol' W had to keep rattling his saber and mouthing off (kinda like you are) and that's pretty much what pissed Germany and France off. They don't like Saddam any more than we do. And if you want to play the WMD card, yes, France sold them weapons... gasp! So did we!!!!! Who's the real bad guy here? And if you have a problem with something that Jacque Chirac (he's the president of France, did you know that?) said, why do you have to roll the entire population of France up into one generalization? My guess is that you probably have racist tendencies, which goes back to my earlier statement that you know NOTHING about free speech.
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams