Slashdot Mirror
Gates and Security
An anonymous reader writes "Orwell was wrong about Big Brother! Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates told a homeland-security conference on Wednesday afternoon that Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, in which Big Brother used technology as a form of social control, 'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'" Other tidbits about this security conference: Gates had his own troubles with security (Drudge is copy-and-pasting from a subscriber-only Roll Call story). Gates is apparently trying to sell interoperability to HomeSec. Meanwhile, Microsoft viruses continue unchecked.
1984 was not a book that tried to predict the future. It was a description of life under a totalitarian government, such as those of the old Eastern Europe. Many defectors from these regimes commented to Orwell on how accurate his portrayal was.
"[Palladium/Trustworthy Computing] can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.
.NET and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 in a desktop portal and Extensible Markup Language-based query engine that lets 17 jurisdictions electronically search each other's records management systems.
:)
Wow. He said that with a straight face? I'd HATE to have played poker with this guy in college. No wonder he cleaned up the table.
Referring to the disparate radio systems scattered among first responders at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Gates said effective command and control cannot arise from cracked communications.
His words served as a segue into his description of a new Microsoft Corp. application, called Regional Automated Information Network, which allows three local law enforcement agencies in Washington state to share records.
The new pilot, which Microsoft officials said started last November, combines Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Visual Studio
Hmmm...shouldn't have any problems with cracked communication there.
My journal has hot
Let's get real. Microsoft may be innocent in terms of Orwellian observations, or they may be a massive conspirator in making such surveillance happen. Microsoft may be a willing participant in the Magic Lantern conspiracy, or they may be a virulent detractor to such a program. The truth is that none of us will ever really know for sure until it's too late.
Do I think Bill himself hates the idea of an Orwellian technological see-all-evil? Yes, I do - the man is human, after all, and quite the philanthropist to boot. Do I trust his company to follow up? No, I don't.
BillG can say what he likes. It doesn't make me any more confident.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
It's a troll article, almost.
More On Topic, 1984 is/was not a vision of the future, but (to me) a warning.
My local paper did a report about it yesterday (or the day before) on what would have been Orwell's 100th birthday. As a warning of what could happen if technology controls us, 1984 is wonderful.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows? Or are you suggesting that quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
It's interesting to see Gates becoming more involved, on an official basis, with the U.S. Federal Government. He's a guy who's always been a politician of sorts, and he's certainly rich enough (and has made enough other people rich, as well) that his support could, theoretically, make or break a modern political campaign.
Now, I don't see Gates reforming his reputation enough to be a plausible candidate himself- well, not for anything more important than Vice President, anyway. But you've got to wonder about a guy whose dream has always been power, money, and more of both. Where else can he go?
Don't answer that, please.
The concepts of trust and security are often used together, but it's important to realize they are at different ends of the spectrum.
If I ask you to trust me, what I'm really doing is asking you to remove some of the security you may have against actions I take.
Security can be a product; you may want to sell it, and I may want to buy it. But trust is a relationship. I will trust you only if I choose to, and no amount of price cuts will have an effect on that. Anyone who tries to sell trust clearly has other intentions in mind.
Also, you can build a fortress of security on top of a foundation of trust, but it makes no sense offer a fortress of security as a replacement for that foundation of trust, which is what many who offer "security" are really trying to sell. The trust has to be there first, or you have nothing to build the security upon.
I don't know if Microsoft will ever recover enough community trust to make any security they offer worthwhile, but I certainly wouldn't want to accept the "security" they offer without a foundation of trust to place it on.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
A fundamental theme of 1984 was doublespeak and its use to confuse the public about the policy intent of the state. Let's consider a few recent items from the US Federal government. Note that while this may look like Bush bashing, I could go further back into history and find an assortment of similar cases from Democratic administrations. I am currently confining myself to only the most recent and obvious items of interest.
Tax cuts to "stimulate the economy": Intended to starve entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools that it would be political suicide to challenge directly.
Clear Skies Act: Reduces restrictions on air pollution.
Healthy Forest Act: Cuts down profitable old growth forest.
PATRIOT Act: In the name of security, takes away civil liberties that are fundamental to the nation to which we are "patriotic".
FCC Deregulation: Ostensibly to allow media outlets to compete in the newly diverse environment, though the only outcome would be increased concentration of control of media outlets, which invariably raises barriers to competition.
The only places where I see significant diversion between 21st c. US and Orwell's vision are:
1) I don't recall corporate interests being the prime movers behind the policies of the state in 1984 (though it has been 20 years since I read it).
2) I am technically free to sound off this point of view for a marginalized, largely politically insignificant audience.
Of course we are. I would write more, but I'm off to pay $8.00 to get a copy of my credit history dossier from the local credit bureau, because in the past year I've been harassed by two different attorneys representing banks that claim that I owe them money, even though I've never belonged to either bank. The attorney letters always state right off the bat that a negative entry has been placed on my credit history dossier, and that I need to contact them to get it removed. So much for being innocent before being proved guilty.
I have a hard time figuring how, as Bill says, securing computers that contain private information protects our privacy. I am sure that any organization or government that compulsively collects private info will keep it very secure so they will always have access to it. What good did it do a person to know that the KGB and Stalin had their private info in a "very safe location"?
He acts on the false assumption that there will always be a reasonably non-nefarious type running the government. It may be fine now having "Total Info Awaremen" or very secure databases of private info.. assuming you don't feel threatened by our current government.. But, just as soon as the wind changes and some other political movement takes place.. the "not so nice" people will find this information infrastructure (Infostructure, for word geeks) to be very useful.
But I'm sure everything will be fine in my lifetime.
p
He thinks not only DID it come true, it's worse than Orwell thought! His best thought: "It is becoming unprecedentedly difficult for anyone, anyone at all, to keep a secret."
Check it out--it's worth creating the bogus ID for.
blarg.
Remember the trip his father (#41) made when touring a grocery store? He saw people in lines at the checkout and was very curious about what the people were doing (scanning prices). He was very fascinated because he'd never thought something like that could happen.
Freedom ,as in GPL, is called viral and will enslave cosumers while the EULA keeps us free.
Also, ignorance is strength (for Microsoft) becasue only if you are ignorant will you be using Microsoft products (just look at how Miscrosoft is treating it's consumers. Like idiots)
The biggest crime you can commit in Orwellian society it that of thought. Because thought leads to challenging the authorities eventually.
The party was able to know what you are thinking by monitoring your every activity. Even when the main hero believed that his inner thoughts were unknown to them becasue he behaved well in camera, it is revieled that they knew what he was thinking long ago. They methods were impossible to overcome. The Palladium Project combined with spyware (which is already a problem) will permit MS to effectively spy on us. And ofcourse, if you don't smile while being spied on, you are an enemy of the party (Recent stories were companies challenged he EULA and were attacked by MS)
In Orwellian society everyone is encouraged to betray anyone not loyal to the party. even a small child his father (and indeed they do). At least here (greece) the BSA was (and may still be) giving 3 thousand Euro for naming an illegal user of Microsoft products.
In Orwellian Society all history is erased. There is no past. They don't just kill you, you never existed.
Well , we have yet to see this (the scariest of all) but over-relieance to one vendor (MS) , whith no alternatives (with is "unamerican" -> against big Brother), DMCA forbidding replication of knowledge (and self-destructing books). I would say we are on the right track.
Apart from the Technological part , however, the scariest of all is the political aspect. Parallelizing the ideas of the Party to the actions taken by G.W Bush. Presenting a fictional threat makes it very easy to gather the support of people and deprive us of freedom.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
HomeSec sounds like it's straight out of Orwell's NewSpeak dictionary. Did the poster just make it up or is the Department of Homeland Security actually calling itself that?
While many see Bill and wife donating millions to select charities, the link is there if you follow the money.
Take Gate's million dollar donations to the medical efforts of treating AIDS patients in African countries, for instance. Currently, medical treatment for AIDS is extrememly expensive, to the point of unavailability, in most African countries. The American Medical "drug cartels" have effectively obtained patents on these AIDS medications, making it illegal for medical companies in Africa to produce and sell them. This medical intellectual property is protected by the WTO's TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property) Agreement. In order for the millions suffering in these 3rd world countries to obtain the medical treatments, it requires huge money donations that simply then channeled back into the IP holders (one might also not Gate's million dollar stock investments in these drug companies). These huge "donations" are simply protecting the WTO's TRIP's aggrement to protect intellectual property from public decree. Because if anything is going to break the TRIP's agreement it wont be a bunch of geeks on slashdot raving about the unfair RI** anti-piracy practices, it will be the AIDS issue in 3rd world countries.
And suddenly, the link is clear. Gate's "contributions" are mearly protecting his empire which is built on and would crumble without de facto protection of intellectual property rights for corporations. And at what expense to those suffering from AIDS and without treatment?
For further reading on the subject see Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
...but he might well run the shop where big brother bought his equipment.
RFID (also on /. frontpage), Ashcroft, the Dept. of Homeland Security, Poindexter, TIA, ...
That said, Gates is uniquely placed, in a way, to offer his 2 zillion cents. Sitting atop his pile, having broken markets, governments and the law itself on the anvil of his net worth, while simultaneously having been the single largest source of the world's computer security problems, he has helped to bring about the conditions for our further slide into Orwellian social control. That's because Microsoft's decades of slothful security have taught society to view PCs in a state of perpetual tremulous FUD. Marrying that fear to the trauma stoked endlessly by government in its post-911 efforts to brutalize democratic sensibilities is kind of an inevitable career move for Gates (and not only because he can't peddle operating systems like before). After you've taught everyone to fear, what do you do for an encore?
Teach them obedience. Orwell understood that.
Calling it the biggest technological and cultural challenge the country has faced, Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates said that communications interoperability must top the Homeland Security Department's to-do list.
Actually, the biggest technological and cultural challenge our republic has faced is seeing if it can survive the Homeland Security Department - the Room 101 that our excited billionaires are building.