Gates and Security

Gates and Security by bytes256 · 2003-06-27 02:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Gates are definitely a good first step for security, if additional security is required, I would also recommend a pirhana infested moat and barbed wire fences.

--

Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter

Re:Gates and Security by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-06-27 02:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Gates are all well and good but what if your developers have left you with secret backdoors?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Gates and Security by Phroggy · 2003-06-27 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Gates are definitely a good first step for security, if additional security is required, I would also recommend a pirhana infested moat and barbed wire fences.

In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Gates and Security by Oloryn · 2003-06-27 06:36 · Score: 4, Funny

In a world without walls

I would think the existence of Perl is proof this is not a world without walls.

Orwell's version... by BrokenHalo · 2003-06-27 02:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

didn't come true, but Gates' mathods of assimilation are more insidious.

Re:Orwell's version... by jazman_777 · 2003-06-27 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

didn't come true...
The future isn't over yet. There's still plenty of time.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:Orwell's version... by gilesjuk · 2003-06-27 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Combine the visions of the Disney, FBI, RIAA, Microsoft, stupid senators and SCO, makes Big Brother seem bearable in comparison :)
Re:Orwell's version... by Calyth · 2003-06-27 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Didn't come true?
Watch the government rhetoric and their action and you know that this IS the future.

Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bill's a serious threat to democracy now that he's finally old enough that politicians listen to his money.

Buy guns and prepare for the first Corporate War...

Re:Dangerous by jmccay · 2003-06-27 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

And then, with his ID presumably in his pocket, the billionaire huddled with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to discuss tech policy.

This is the part that bothers me. I wonder what technology policies he will try to get passed. Maybe some old stuff Microsft said...like OSS is UnAmerican and Insecure?

--
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that

Big Brother? by SystematicPsycho · 2003-06-27 02:50 · Score: 2, Funny

I thought Bill Gates got voted off the planet, is he still here?

--
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold

Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 02:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 02:56 · Score: 5, Funny

1984 was not a book that tried to predict the future.
Then why did he timestamp it?
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Both 1984 and Animal Farm were an attempt to highlight the evils that Stalin & the Soviet Union were inflicting on its people in the name of "communism". While Orwell supported the concept of Communism, he was appalled at the way in which it was being bent and twisted into Stalinism, and in particular the historical revisionism of the Soviet revolution E.g. labelling Trotsky as an enemy of the people.

1984 was a scare story, essentially in an attempt to show people what had happened and what would continue to happen if Stalinism was allowed to continue in the name of Communism. As you say, he was pretty damn close to the truth.

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.

He might not have been trying to predict the future, but it does sometimes seem that the future is trying its hardest to copy Orwells imagination..
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Floody · 2003-06-27 03:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

Then why did he timestamp it?

He didn't. The novel's setting was in some future time, however it was not intended to be specific but rather allegorical for all totalitarian regimes. In order to come up with this completely arbitrary future time period, Orwell simply reversed the last two digits of the year he wrote it: 1948.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 03:09 · Score: 5, Funny

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.
That's so untrue! For example, a modern government would never attempt to control the language to prevent meaningful debate of international terrorism or the liberation of Iraq.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by KludgeGrrl · 2003-06-27 03:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Right now he's getting a great deal of play in the media for his prescience, not becuse 1984 came true, but because he helped create a vocabulary (thoughtcrime, Big Brother etc...) that can be used to view current events in a new (disturbing) way.

For example, check out Google News through truespeak filter at berkeley (or any news site, just replace the second http address).

His language casts a new light on what's going on, for issues of computer privacy to foreign and domestic policy...

True fans can sheck out Students for an Orwellian Society which continues in the vein. (And, to be clear, it's satire guys, satire)
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Simon+Hibbs · 2003-06-27 03:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

According to Andrei Sakharov, although the books were supposedly illegal in the USSR, they were actualy printed by the communist party in small quantities and circulated to select members, not as warnings but essentialy as 'how-to' manuals.

Simon Hibbs
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
If the red mist is making it hard for you to read, I'll just point this out again for you

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.

Specifically, those tricks are
1. Attempts to control the language and use of language (Political Correctness, using meaningless phrases to describe the mechanics of war etc.)
2. Increased servailence of the population (Use of CCTV cameras, PATRIOT act, T.I.A)
3. Distraction of the population (Orweel invented the 2 Minute Hate for this, but we have a more generic Hate of the Week; the Dixie Chicks, Micheal Moore, an NYT journalist, CNN, the French..take your pick and hate them irrationally)
4. The attempt to keep the population docile through the use of entertainment (Orwell had pulp novel machines & porn generators, we have Holywood & American Idol for that)
I never said we were living in an Orwellian nightmare, or that Bush was Big Brother. Orwell was not trying to predict the future and Big Brother does not exist. We are still free to dislike the Government, we are still free to think what we like, we are still free to post comments such as this one, and for the most part we still live in a Democracy. Thats all good.

All I am trying to point out is that some parts of 1984 have made their ways into our lives, and we should be damn sure that we don't end up with even more of it.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by technofeab · 2003-06-27 03:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can appreciate the frustration that many feel concerning the poor quality and shallowness of modern governance.
However, I believe that it is a GROSS over-exaggeration to say that our non-Communist governments approximate the totalitarian regimes of the past.
If we do indeed lack some fundamental rights, it is due to our own laziness. We seem to demand so many things of our government. Yet, simultaneously, we are too damned lazy to get off our asses and work for those things that we want.
Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.
However, we suffer only under the yolk of our own ignorance, laziness, shallowness, etc. You get the idea.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 03:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

You FEEL like it's a democracy because you've been TOLD it's a democracy.

You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news.

How come the so-called PRESS is all over the news when it comes to Iraq and finding clues to WMD's when, right here in the US, There is no coverage of how BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS are being taken away by the misnamed PATRIOT Act ?

Or how come Americans never got to see Iraqi people being shot by American soldiers during the invasion when every body else in the world saw ?

Or how, I never saw on the CNN's from page Greenspan's initial objections to the Bush administration's plan on tax cuts for the rich ?

But really you shouldn't pay attention to any of that. Those car chases and that dog rescued by the firemen from some rooftop is more interesting. Nothing for you to see here.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget the banner slogans from 1984:

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"

Orwell was frightningly accurate in his portrayal...
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Ellen+Ripley · 2003-06-27 04:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

If we do indeed lack some fundamental rights, it is due to our own laziness. We seem to demand so many things of our government.

Agreed, sort of. It's important to keep the pronouns straight.

I demand nothing of my government except that it mind it's own business. I'm not opposed to the basic idea of government, but my participation is not voluntary and so I'm getting a bad deal. I want my participation to be voluntary so that I can put the forcibly removed 15-20% of my paycheck into medical and dental care. I want government to provide a basic minimum of services (the primary service I expect is providing a nexus for the administration of common property, like land and air), not to control a broad swath of public life. I think I speak for a lot of slashdotters when I say that government is at best a necessary evil, something I put up with rather than genuinely like.

But this is not what "we", in the sense of most people, want. Most people do want government to be more involved. There are studies that show that most people are pro-government. They think the measures to "combat terrorism" are a good idea. They think that free speech rights are a little too broad. They take it for granted that the purpose of government is to take care of people. The desires of the majority are 'obviously' correct. (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Zeitgeist.) The problem isn't government, it's these vast numbers of people who support government. Those people won't get the long-term picture until it's the short-term picture; they will support government until it's an immediate problem for them.

As always, the only profound solution is education. Until most people understand at a gut-level that government is the atomic-bomb of social engineering, a powerful and dangerous weapon that needs to operated with attention, caution and deliberation, they and "we" -- the smaller "we", the slashdot-type "we" that prefers freedom to comfort and security -- are going to remain under the feet of government.

--
mods metamodded as "Unfair"
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by kin_korn_karn · 2003-06-27 04:26 · Score: 5, Funny

"Ignorance is Strength" has already been adopted by the American people.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by 3Bees · 2003-06-27 04:50 · Score: 5, Informative

AAAAHHHH!!!! It's happening here too!! When my sister read Animal Farm in school they told her the same thing; read the book as an historical allegory. Be warned!! Avoid this reading at all costs!! The book (and 1984 too) will lose all art and relevance if you do such!

Yes, they were inspired by Orwell's dissillusionment with Stalinist SSR, but they were not strict allegories! They dealt with the nature of political power and the tools of oppression and control. They were inspired (nearly) as much by what he saw in Franco's Spain as by Stalist USSR.

Reading these two novels as strict historical allegory does them a tremendous disservice.

--
"I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by danila · 2003-06-27 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

As another poster already suggested, you probably, "don't know what you're talking about". Here is just a brief summary of what communism actually is:

Next social formation after capitalism

Social equality (no classes)

Means of production belong to the public

Thanks to the development of science and technology, the production capacities will greatly increase

The work will become the first necessity for the people, not by force, but voluntary

"Communism is an advanced society of free and conscientious workers" (KPSS programme, 1972)

You might be very frightened of communism, but it might actually happen in the US (and in other countries) in several decades simply because of scientific and technological development. That would be the best outcome, however it is possible the the society will jump straight to the individualistic post-human world.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by geekee · 2003-06-27 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

"That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984."

I disagree. A govt. that has as its principle freedom of an individual, including free press, cannot turn into a 1984 state. This is because that type of state needs to control information. This is how they rewrite history, through information control. In a demcracy with a free press, however, leaders don't have the ability to make up facts to make their reign look better than it really is. The best example of a 1984-style regeme is that of N. Korea. Not a cooincidence that this is also a Communist country. Communism places the collective above the individual, and therefore, has no problem abusing individuals and trampling over their rights in order to improve the collective. Of course the collective is most improved when the current leadership remains in power and has more wealth and privilege. It's only natural.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by JesterXXV · 2003-06-27 05:14 · Score: 3, Informative

I challenge you to tell me how we are supposed to make any difference anymore.
By fucking caring, that's how. By spreading the understanding to those around you (if you are in the U.S.) that they live in a fucking bubble, which seems to be growing smaller every day. By living your life as if you have choices (of music, of movies, of religions, of beliefs, hell, of operating systems) besides those which society shoves down our throats. By not being fucking complacent, only then will things even begin to change.
Voting will never solve anything, as your options consist of a corporate-owned whore or a corporate-owned slut.
There's plenty of options. There are only two that are really shoved down our throats, and most likely the one elected will be one of them. BUT - if third-party (fourth-? fifth-?) candidates get significant amounts of votes, people will pay attention. They will see new names, new choices creeping into their field of vision.
I LOVE my country. I love the Constitution and rights it grants me. I love the ideals that the founders had in mind.
But I HATE what my country has become. I hate the laws that have created and the loopholes left gaping which circumvent my Constitution. I hate the ideals that my society expresses.
This world is not static; it is either evolving or devolving. It is up to us to care which direction it goes.

--
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by kin_korn_karn · 2003-06-27 05:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.

I believe you have egg on your face.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by geekee · 2003-06-27 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

"You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news."

The fallacy in your argument is that you fail to define "they". In 1984 the govt. controlled the press, and even rewrote history. In the 1st world, the press is independent of the govt., and reports news it thinks people are interested in. If you don't like the news being reported, you even have the option of starting your own news agency. What do you propose? Force people to read news that YOU find interesting?

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by LostCluster · 2003-06-27 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're right. We're not a democracy. We're a representative republic for most issues. That is, we don't bother to ask every person in America about every issue, we instead democratically select representatives who gather in Washington, D.C. to debate almost everything. Some of the issues they talk about are huge, but most of the routine things just slip by without getting the public's attention.

We select our president in the same way. We say we're voting for the president, but what we're really doing is voting for which panel of people our state will send to the Electoral College. Those people were selected by the campaign of the person whose name appears on the ballot, so it's rather certain (and contractually required) that they're going to vote for the people they're expected to, but they still have to gather and count the votes just to make sure we're doing it right. This crazy system allows a candidate who got less of the popular vote than another to pull out an upset, but is there to assure that the winning candidate must have supporters spread into many states and not just a few... the difference between getting 51% of California's vote and 98% of California's vote is wiped off the scorecard.

As for the mainstream media reporting "what they want you to hear" news, it's actually "what you want to hear" news. People like to watch car chases, and most of them don't really understand what Alan Greenspan does anyway. The beautiful thing about America is that you're not limited to one official news provider. You've got ABC, CBS, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, Fox News, and CNN/CNN Headline/CNNfn for mainstream news, but they're not the only options. Matt Drudge is free to post whatever he wants about stories that he thinks the media is ignoring. I highly recommend against you getting all of your news just from Slashdot, but if that's your wish nobody can stop you. The mainstream media just get their status because they are the sources that most of the people listen to... if more people came to Slashdot than watched Peter Jennings, then Slashdot would instantly become considered a mainstream media source. But they don't, the average person considers this place "too geeky" for them.

You know what, we even let you over-paranoid people post things on the Internet... so nobody's censoring you. Just don't take to to hard when you get modded -1 Troll.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by slowtech · 2003-06-27 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Of course the collective is most improved when the current leadership remains in power and has more wealth and privilege. It's only natural. "

Of course. Tax breaks for the wealthy improve the economy and create jobs. Allowing media conglomerates to grow unchecked increases efficiency, eliminates waste, and creates jobs. War must be wages in the name of peace. And it creates jobs. It is all very clear.

No free country could ever be controlled by a wealthy and privileged few. Impossible. Really, unthinkable. No one even mentions it on TV.

--
"Well it's not Victory - but then it's not Death either."
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by danila · 2003-06-27 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Social equality should have come because control over means of production is eliminated. The government that was built over 1917-1920s - the Soviets - was actually democractic. Unfortunately for us all, Stalin came to power (despite Lenin's repeated warnings) and basically murdered everybody (or at least everybody who could potentially have been a threat to him). Thus a totalitarian and authoritarian state was developed. At the same time, nomenclatura emerged, which was basically a new class of government workers. A really unfortunate and unintended result.

Social equality can work to some extent in truly democratic countries (where you don't have oligarchy, families and even dynasties of politicians, legalised bribes, etc.). So we cannot be sure at this stage that it can't work in communism.

As per your next comment about communism's poor track record, the main problem is that it wasn't tried that much. There have been only a couple examples of governments really taking the ideology seriously (only to some extent) and they all have achieved surprisingly good results, given the conditions in which they started.

Speaking specifically of the problems that they faced, the biggest one, I believe, was the lack of feedback and freedom. And that wasn't a failure of communism, but a characteristic result of Stalin's dictatorship.

Please also note that the prerequisites to the communism are advanced science and technology, and well educated and well brought up population. Advanced management information systems also come handy. Today we would have much better chances if we try communism once again.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by pmiller396 · 2003-06-27 07:20 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't know what you're talking about ....
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by Seraphim_72 · 2003-06-27 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

...and in fact 1984 is the year that the main character guesses it is....because in reality know one knows what yearit is.

--
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by fupeg · 2003-06-27 07:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Wow, this is such an elitist/arrogant/I'm-smarter-than-you/my-shit-don' t-smell post, even by Slashdot standards. This sounds like the kind of stuff that high schoolers or college freshmen say after a riveting philosophy class.

I want government to provide a basic minimum of services
but I thought you said ...
I demand nothing of my government except that it mind it's own business
but the truth comes out ...
I want my participation to be voluntary so that I can put the forcibly removed 15-20% of my paycheck
So the true reason behind your elitism, other than arrogance, is greed.
I think I speak for a lot of slashdotters
Stick to speaking for yourself please.

Until most people understand at a gut-level that government is the atomic-bomb of social engineering
That's right, everybody needs to be as smart as you right?

I think you'd be interested in an active government if somebody was trying to rob your house.
Or blow up your office building.
Or hack your bank account.
Or if you didn't have any freeways to drive on to get to work.
Or if your house was flooded.
Or if you lost your job and for some reason nobody seemed to realize how smart you were and give you a new one.
Or if you were a scientist and wanted to research something completely impractical.
Or if you had a smart child but couldn't afford to send them to college (where maybe they could become as smart as you).

By trivializing what the government is responsible for, you show your own ignorance (despite the fact that you are clearly smarter than "the masses.") I'm not defending any characteristic of the American government, but before you propose a solution, make sure you understand the problem.
Re:Orwell's vision was true! by smugfunt · 2003-06-27 07:43 · Score: 2, Informative

In order to come up with this completely arbitrary future time period, Orwell simply reversed the last two digits of the year he wrote it: 1948.

Orwell originally called it 1948, his publisher made him change it.

this is what it takes by L.+VeGas · 2003-06-27 02:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Put bars on Windows and locks on Gates.

Then I'll feel secure.

--
Best Windows Freeware

Re:this is what it takes by wass · 2003-06-27 03:09 · Score: 5, Funny

No no, look at it from the optimistic vantage point instead.
In a world without walls, there's no need for Windows.
In a world without fences, there's no need for Gates.

--
make world, not war

Obviously by Bame+Flait · 2003-06-27 02:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Additionally, Mr. Gates is also expected to call upon renowned informaticist Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf to support his arguments.

Some choice quotes by Surak · 2003-06-27 02:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

"[Palladium/Trustworthy Computing] can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.

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 .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.

Hmmm...shouldn't have any problems with cracked communication there. :)

--
My journal has hot /. gossip.

Re:Some choice quotes by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-06-27 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course, the problem with these law enforcement databases is not that they can exchange information, it's that the information in them is suspect, libelous, our outright wrong.
My mother was working on on such system for tracking survielance calls. You would see observations like "Sounds black" or "Probable Prostitute". The place was run by Ex-law enforcement types, and they really thought these sorts of things were appropriate to store in a database.
If I have learned anything running databases at my current job, and for a volunteer organization, its that bad data is like a disease. You get folks who don't understand what goes where, or what is appropriate to store, you find yourself doing a whole lot of cleaning up later.
On one form we ask volunteers for Emergency Medical information and Allergies. I had to explicitly instruct people to stop submitting hayfever or dairy products we only want to know what to tell the Paramedic if you are unconcious.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Similar story at CNN Europe by Jon+Abbott · 2003-06-27 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

CNN Europe recently ran a similar story about Orwell's dystopian vision, and whether or not it has "come true" or not by now... Not much of the story is new for us that like to wear tin foil hats though... :^)

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 03:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:Similar story at CNN Europe by crazyphilman · 2003-06-27 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Also, here in New York, the state government tracks all sorts of personal movement. If you use a subway card, your movements are recorded; if you use EasyPass, your movements into and out of NYC, and around the state via toll roads, are recorded on a large Digital Unix server. I had a conversation once with one of the engineers who built the system. He said that whenever you passed through a toll on a New York State Highway, your front license plate, your rear license plate, your VIN plate on your dashboard, and your face are all recorded. The two license plates are compared, and then, they are compared to the VIN number to see if they match up. If they don't, the system has the capacity to react to that, although I don't know if they've enabled that part. The original motivation for this was the World Trade Center bombing, and the Oklahoma City bombing, way back when. They wanted to track vehicle traffic in and out of NYC.

During WWII, the Germans controlled traffic via checkpoints every few miles. You had to show papers to proceed. It was a large part of totalitarian control -- control of personal movement is control of liberty.

Interesting, isn't it?

--
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!

Oh yeah? I call shovel time... by garcia · 2003-06-27 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

"This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said. "Orwell didn't anticipate how technology can be used to protect privacy. The fact that technology can protect both security and privacy by protecting the computer systems and the information on them is a positive thing."

Dear Mr. Bullshit Artist Premiere:

Explain to me how the technology you are pushing for will protect my privacy? Your current pushes seem to be towards forwarding my information about EVERYTHING on my computer (including what hardware I am using when XP shuts itself off), stopping me from running what I want in my fucking house, on my fucking computer, and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use.

So, not only is my privacy signed away, my freedom to use software *I* want to use is toast, and you get to dictate the OS of the future by allowing companies to see the "benefits" of developing for your shit.

Once your pushes for these "protection schemes" goes away I will again feel a bit safer running your systems.

Please refrain from future attempts at dictating to me what I can and can't do with software and hardware I purchased.

Thanks for listening,

Re:Microsoft viruses? by jasonsfa98 · 2003-06-27 02:53 · Score: 2, Funny

MS Windows is a virus:

Here's what viruses do:

1. They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.

2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so - okay, Windows does that.

3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay, Windows does that too.

4. Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems. Sigh... Windows does that, too.

5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. Yup, that's with Windows, too.

Until now it seems Windows is a virus...but there are fundamental differences:

Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

So Windows is not a virus.

It's a bug.

From someone else ...

Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact that I have to read the BBC to get some of the news that don't make the cut in US media isn't really worrysome? Or that most US radios won't play more than a dozen songs all day long? Or the fact that several laws and regulations are enacted without the public being aware of them? Cases in point: DMCA, UCITA, new FCC rules, etc.

Maybe there's no Big Brother, but I'm convinced there's a Big Brotherhood.

Re:Really? by Radon+Knight · 2003-06-27 03:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Maybe there's no Big Brother, but I'm convinced there's
> a Big Brotherhood.
You might consider reading Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent. It's an interesting account of how market forces in the mass media can serve to generate an implicit propaganda machine for the government. It's implicit because there is no single person in charge of saying "print this!" or "don't print that!", but the convergence of big business and mass media and corporate interests can all lead to generate a similar sort of phenomenon.

1984 by Waab · 2003-06-27 02:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Gates told the Homeland Security folks all about how Palladium and other 'secure computing' initiatives will actually prevent the kind of scenario presented in Orwell's classic.

When asked by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge exactly how Palladium "relates to that one really neat Super Bowl commercial, the one with the running and throwing the hammer at the tv", Gates got a little red in the face and mumbled something about how that was the "wrong company."

Orwell's vision not happening? NOT! by gordona · 2003-06-27 02:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

If anyone cares who doubts that we don't live in Orwellian times, listen to Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org), Wednesdays broadcast should surely convince you. You can get it at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/2 5/1353213.

--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove

What else do you expect? by Motherfucking+Shit · 2003-06-27 02:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.'"

Does anyone expect Bill Gates to say "Yes, Big Brother is coming alive and we're helping to make it happen?" Or "Total Information Awareness will really take hold once Longhorn is released to consumers?"

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.

Viruses as Control over Big Brother? by Bonker · 2003-06-27 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft is doing what corporations do-- They make money by whatever means they can. If that means setting up Orwelling controls for overzealous LEOs, then so be it. Is Microsoft doing that? Probably not intentionally, but they're putting the infrstructure in place to make it happen regardless.

Reading about Sobig.E this morning made me start to think about the positive effects of viruses and computer problems.

One of the most changing impacts is that anyone who spends any time around computers at all gains a healthy respect of what kind of effort is needed to keep your personal information on your computer and out of the hands of malicious crackers. I upset my mother deeply a few months ago when I demonstrated to her that her computer was infected by one of the CodeRed variants. It was most disturbing for her to have me read the contents of her 'My Documents' directory off to her over the phone. She immediately installed firewall software and the kind of virus scanning software I recommended.

It's becoming more and more likely for people to want to protect themselves and their computers from informational damage, wether it comes from malicious information vandals or belligerant, mammoth-like corporations.

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!

Neat by Jonsey · 2003-06-27 02:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time... by goldspider · 2003-06-27 02:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

"...and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use."

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

Disconnect from reality by revscat · 2003-06-27 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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."

Is it just me, or is the view when you're worth bookoo bagallions just a little bit different than from when you have to worry about finances more? Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Gates, being in the stratosphere as far as powerful men are concerned, doesn't have to concern himself with Orwellian government because he is above the fray.

"Class warfare" and yadda-yadda, but having that much money and influence simply has to affect how you view the world. This is a classic example of this in play. *I* worry about government intrusiveness and civil liberties because I am almost completely powerless - as an individual - to prevent it. Sure I got a couple of guns, but what good would that do against a government?

Favorite quote from the link by deadsaijinx* · 2003-06-27 03:03 · Score: 2, Funny

"The present reality is a middle-aged man with a worried expression and a big butt."

--
YOU SUCK BALLS!

Re:Orwell's vision not happening? NOT! by slackr · 2003-06-27 03:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is so true. When I read 1984, the privacy concerns paled in my mind in comparison with the government's control of information and by extension its absolute power over knowledge. Sure the 24-hour surveillance was scary, but what about not being able to trust the thoughts, beliefs and "facts" inside your own head? Sound like any Fox News shows you've seen recently?

--

* Please do not read my signature.

Re:Come on Michael ... by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-06-27 03:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft Worms is about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.

Just replace "drunk driving" by "exploding gastanks" and your analogy will work fine.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

talking out of two sides of his mouth. by wwest4 · 2003-06-27 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

> "Orwell was an alarmist"

and

> Gates applauded increased information sharing
> between government agencies.

Regardless of the technology involved: if inter-agency information sharing continues unabated, then U.S. lovers of the democratic republic are screwed out of it officially. This is simple to see, and Gates is not stupid. Clearly, he loves the promise of federal $ more than he fears totalitarianism. That's probably went without saying before the sales pitch to HomeSec.

Freakin' lasers by truthsearch · 2003-06-27 03:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Don't forget the freakin' sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their freakin' heads. They've killed many an un-named henchmen.

--
Developers: We can use your help.

Re: Oxymoron by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-27 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

> Is it just me, or have 'Gates and Security' become another oxymoron term, like 'Microsoft Works'?

For Gates and other MS execs, "security" is just another marketing buzzword.

And that's exactly what they're selling.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Vice President Gates by jpnews · 2003-06-27 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Trust vs. Security by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-06-27 03:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

I guess Gates still doesn't get it, or maybe it get's it and he's just hoping nobody calls him on it.

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.

Re:Trust vs. Security by Unfallen · 2003-06-27 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, I've always thought this was a confused issue too.

However, in some extreme-point-haired-management kind of way, trust and security have now become such cliched buzzwords that they have lost any significant meaning they once meant, at least in politics. Most staements involving trust or security are generally (ok, IMHO :) regarded as an excuse to carry out some action, without any real rationale being given.

My own personal paranoia aside though, paradoxically security as a social process has had completely the opposite effect. By promoting "security" as a product, or perhaps as an effect of pushing "fear" as one, those that choose to believe in the hype generated by its rolling machinations of fear tend to not feel any more "secure" in their new promised land. Rather, quite the opposite. Nor do they "trust" anyone or anything any more.

Furthermore, you cannot "buy trust". Anyone that believes they are secure because they have "bought" security and trustworthiness from elsewhere deserves all they get, when it does eventually come.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time... by greentree · 2003-06-27 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Your current pushes seem to be towards forwarding my information about EVERYTHING on my computer (including what hardware I am using when XP shuts itself off)

wah? are you talking about windows xp? the product id? nothing is sent to microsoft. the product id was used to prevent 'causual copying' and widespread use of product keys. it generated by your current hardware setup and the product key. nothing is sent during activation and there are many ways to get around the WPA. also, things like service pack 1a check for mainly two product ids that have been "blacklisted". what happens when xp shuts itself off? umm, beats me...

protects privacy by protecting computers? by ph43thon · 2003-06-27 03:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Philanthropist, no by truthsearch · 2003-06-27 03:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I really don't like it when people say he's "quite the philanthropist." It's quite the opposite. My father's a CPA and one of the first things he tells a rich client is to give a lot to charity for tax purposes. If someone makes $100,000/yr and gives away $5,000 that's 5% going to charity. If Bill G's assets are (let's just say) increasing by $1 billion per year, giving away $10,000,000 is only 1% going to charity. So giving $50 million to charity may seem like a lot, but it's a very small portion of what he's got.

But much more important are where the so-called charity is going. Most of it goes into the trust his wife manages. Do you know what that charity does with their assets under management? The money that's in holding and not going out to good use is put into investments - tax-free investments in companies who are Microsoft's allies. I can't find the link at the moment, but the "charitable" Bill G is using his donations to fund companies to help Microsoft and put competition out of business. Also, much of the donations are for Microsoft software to be put into school systems. There's a lot more going on than cash going to poor starving children.

--
Developers: We can use your help.

Does Gates Read? by linuxislandsucks · 2003-06-27 03:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

from my recollections of Orwell it was never direct control but indirect conrol in incremental steps..

Did Gates actually read the book or cliff notes version?

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

Gibson said it DID come true yesterday... by jeblucas · 2003-06-27 03:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

William Gibson wrote an editorial in the New York Times REGISTRATION REQUIRED yesterday about 1984 and did not agree overly with Gates' assessment of, "didn't come true, and I don't believe it will."

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.

Re:Gibson said it DID come true yesterday... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-27 04:11 · Score: 2, Informative

registration free link - courtesy of google.
(To parent: you know, it's not all that hard to spend just an extra minute to provide such a link for the people here; saves a lot of them a lot of time...)

Re:Viruses unchecked? by griffjon · 2003-06-27 03:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Um, or download AVG from grisoft.com for free, and aget a lower memory-footprint, and fewer clutter-things than McAfee or Norton.

No need to get illegal here for inferior products.

--
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer

A little too subtle by fireboy1919 · 2003-06-27 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

For all you people who missed it (especially the moderator who marked it as "insightful" rather than "funny"), that was irony.

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is an attempt at thought control.

So is calling our actions there "liberation."

Thinking about it, you can easily see that the issue is not so cut and dried as "good guys" versus "axis of evil."

Recognize, analyze and decide for yourself, and such things will have no power over you. Otherwise, you may be violently for or against the things that you would do better to think about logically, as I believe that many of both the strong pacifists and strong agressors in this past war have been before even seeing the facts.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

Re:A little too subtle by ATMAvatar · 2003-06-27 04:28 · Score: 2, Funny

I'll trade you a pack of victory cigarettes for some of your freedom fries :)

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:A little too subtle by Richard_at_work · 2003-06-27 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is accurate. Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush (version 1.0). He also manufactured WMD (whether or not they are still there is irrelevant, there are numerous reports throughout the 90s that showed they were). Iraq = terrorists. Iran isn't much better.

By the same vein the CIA has tried to assassinate many a foreign national and leader. Also by the same vein the US has manufacturered and use WOMD. Also going one further, the US uses economic and military threat as means to ends. Does this make them terrorists? You cant say that one is and the other isnt when they have used the same methods.

I will agree that we liberated iraq, but only because the people under his rule were suffering, not because of the excuses we used to go there. It IS important that we find the weapons that we said were there, and it is important that we find them in the condition that we claimed they were there, IE ready for use in 45 minutes. If we do not find anything then we invaded a sovereign foreign country on false pretenses.

It looks very likely that Iran will be next, with all the dirt throwing the US and its allies have been doing over the past few weeks. "You are harbouring iraqi people we want." "The weapons we are searching for are being smuggled over your borders." "You are now interfering in iraqi internal politics." Where is the evidence for these accusations? Granted Iran expelled a number of iraqis when it was pointed out to them, but the other two? Give it a rest.
Re:A little too subtle by NiceGeek · 2003-06-27 05:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Remember, terrorists are what the big army calls the little army.
Re:A little too subtle by Eric+Damron · 2003-06-27 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Some people don't like to admit it, but there is no such thing as moral relativism. You are trying to say that there is no difference between Saddam possessing a nuke, and the US possessing a nuke. Yes, the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon, but we used it responsibly and continue to use our power responsibly. Saddam would try and drop it on DC."

I don't understand that reasoning. By your example there is such a thing as moral relativism. You appear to be saying that both countries have WMD but is okay for the US but not for Iraq.

The truth is that right and wrong are irrelevant in the face of overwhelming power.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

No, no signs at all... by arcanumas · 2003-06-27 03:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Slogan of the Party is "War is Peace , Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strengh."

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.

State of the Control of the State by Unfallen · 2003-06-27 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

"This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.

Blah blah yes it can but Orwell wasn't questioning the technology, he was writing about its use by the state. Technology's just a tool, any visionary realises that in primary school. The technology doesn't prevent a tendency away from trust, towards control of a populace, that's the job of people. Maybe if Billy was ranting on about how he was setting up technology focus groups to teach misuse of data, then he might have a point, but he's not.

To be fair, it's a difficult position. On one hand, all the little government agencies need to be responsible for something nationwide, and the general populace is way too lazy to bother abut protecting themselves, so something needs to get a handle on it. On the other hand... well, there'd be a good bit of ol-fashioned choir-preaching going on if I went on about state mis-use of data. Fortunately, being the largest home-user software house and one of the largest corporate influences fits Microsoft into both camps at once - hey, if it gets them money, then it must be good.

Yes, there's a hell of a long way to go in terms of getting users to respect their own privacy, and to respect the importances and influences of the gargantuan amount of data that is accessible these days.

However, what we really need for this is more education, not more technology. The latter is useless without the former. People will still be vulnerable if they don't understand what the system's doing, and the new wave of privacy technology isn't designed to do that. Just as the only secure machine is an off one, so the most private individual is a dead one.

Networking is ubiquitous, it affects us all, and as such we all take responsibility, not place it into the hands of a few people out to cash in on it. The sooner we realise that as a society, the better.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time... by AsparagusChallenge · 2003-06-27 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not EVERYONE can just drop Windows.

Yes, everyone can.

It'd be costly, of course, but freedom is not "free of charge". It has to be earned.

Arrg Windows and Viruses by tomstdenis · 2003-06-27 04:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stop drawing this parallel.

The reason windows gets infected with virii is because windows users are complete and utter fucking morons.

I routinely get 100s of virii sent to my email box a day [the price I pay for posting my email address in usenet] and I've never been infected once despite the fact I used to use MSIE for everything for the longest time [I use Moz in WinXP now].

This connection that windows is inherently vulnerable is just pathetic. Idiot linux users running as root can do just as much damage.

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

WOW! Imagine That! by w3weasel · 2003-06-27 04:02 · Score: 4, Funny

The gov asks Billy what is best for their PC's and Billy advises a substantial deposit into his bank account.

While I would hope that anyone advising the government would have our best interests at heart, I have to admit, if they were to ask me what was best, I would say that a substantial deposit into MY account would ensure national safety... hey, I'm only human!

--

Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy

HomeSec? by MagPulse · 2003-06-27 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

If Gates is serious...... by mormop · 2003-06-27 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

He's more of an arsehole than most give him credit for.

Look back through history and it's littered with good ideas put to nefarious uses. The problem is that no matter how well meaning technolgists are you are still left with the problem that cabinet level politicians are, generally speaking, not the most trustworthy and ethical persons on the planet.

For example, nuclear power. Possible clean and long lasting fuel source (if it was done properly), could improve everone's lot. First practical use - frying people and destroying whole cities and then threatening to destroy the planet from then on. Luckily the balance in power during the cold war means we are still here.

Example 2 - Gunpowder. use it to make pretty patterns in the sky, then adapt it to shoot lead balls through people and blow things up.

Give politicians the tools and they will always pour money into discovering the best way to use it to their own advantage whether it's for kicking the shit out of foreigners or keeping the populace in check at home.

The only trouble is that with computers and IT in general there's no mushroom cloud to let you know it's going on if they do it in secret Remember how long the governments involved denied Echelon's existence before finally owing up.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

The Link by DongleFondle · 2003-06-27 04:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

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."

Re:Well then... by pi+radians · 2003-06-27 04:20 · Score: 4, Funny

...you just have to fill that backdoor, then, don't you? I hear that's Gates' specialty.

I don't get it....

... but I hear that Ballmer does, all the time.

/rimshot

--

sin(6cos(r)+5A)

the rest of the comment (as I see it) by pergamon · 2003-06-27 04:24 · Score: 3, Funny

'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'

...until everyone switches to Palladium

orwell & huxley by ralphus · 2003-06-27 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone always mentions orwell when talking about future societies and the impact of technology. Orwell was wrong, I agree with Gates. He painted quite a scary picture of a future controlled by big brother, but guess what... People don't like to be controlled if they know that they are, people would rebel in a orwellian state and there would be a state of bloody utter chaos and government ruling by a iron fist.

Huxley, however, painted a much scarier picture of a future society that is already coming partially true today. The best kind of servitude is that where the servant loves to serve the will of the master and knows no better, but a drone is a drone is a drone. In Huxley's world, all that the government and the powers that be have to do to retain control and shape things in the way they want is to use basic psychological principles such as someone responds better towards reward than punishment, placate them with their soma, touchie-feelies, etc, and they will want no more, or not think outside the system.

I highly suggest you check out Brave New World Revisited It is a collection of essays Huxley wrote on the topics of Brave New World, later in his life. I think you will be frightened and suprised.

Description from website:

In 1958, Aldous Huxley wrote what might be called a sequel to his novel Brave New World, published in 1932, but it was a sequel that did not revisit the story or the characters, or re-enter the world of the novel. Instead, he revisited that world in a set of 12 essays. Taking a second look at specific aspects of the future Huxley imagined in Brave New World, Huxley meditated on how his fantasy seemed to be turning into reality, frighteningly and much more quickly than he had ever dreamed.

That he had been so prophetic in 1931 about the dystopian future gave Huxley no comfort. He was a far more serious man in 1958 -- at the age of 64 -- and the world was a very different place, transformed by the catastrophe of World War II, the advent of nuclear weapons and the grip of the Cold War. Looking behind the Iron Curtain, where people were not free but dominated by totalitarian power, Huxley could only bow to the grim prophecy of his friend (and, briefly, his student at Eton) George Orwell in the novel 1984. In the free world, however, the situation seemed even more to be one for despair. For it seemed to Huxley that people were well on their way to giving up their freedom and the sanctity of their individualism, in exchange for the illusions of comfort and sensory pleasure -- just as they had in Brave New World.
Huxley heard, in 1958, a world full of the noise of what he called singing commercials, flooding the mass media, much like the hypnopaedia that shaped conscious thought in the world of the novel. He saw people everywhere in greater numbers taking tranquilizer drugs, to surrender to the unacceptable aspects of modern life -- not unlike the drug called soma that everyone takes in the novel. The power of propaganda, he believed, had been validated by the rise of Hitler, and the postwar world was using it effectively to manipulate the masses. Overpopulation was already a critical issue in 1958, and Huxley saw the emergence of an overpopulated world in which the chaos was, more and more, being countered by centralized control -- closer, it seemed, to the future of Brave New World, where the ultimate controlling capitalist of Huxley's early years, Henry Ford, had become the equivalent of God.
In the end, Brave New World Revisited despairs of what has come to pass, primarily modern humankinds willingness to surrender freedom for pleasure. Huxley quotes from the episode of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov -- "For nothing," the Inquisitor insists, "has ever been more insupportable for a man or a human society than freedom." Huxley worried that the cry of "Give me liberty or give me death" could easily be replaced by "Give me television and hamburgers, but

--
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout

True story by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2003-06-27 04:43 · Score: 3, Funny

I once went to the white house with my wife and mother-in-law. My mother-in-law used her Citibank Visa with her photo on it as her picture ID. We got in. This is pre-911, of course, but still makes me laugh.

--

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

It may make sense to THEM by PetoskeyGuy · 2003-06-27 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

"This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.

Of course were all going to sit here and point out to ourselves it doesn't make sense. But remember he was speaking to CONGRESS. The same people who believe in lowering taxes and raising spending will lower the national debt. Listening to confirmed software monopolist talking about what they should do about their future software plans.

When he said he doesn't think it's come true and doesn't think it will, perhaps he means he'll never acheive the total control he's always dreamed of, what with Linux the constitution on such standing in the way.

You have to remember to take everything out of context.

bill is not big brother... by geoff+lane · 2003-06-27 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

...but he might well run the shop where big brother bought his equipment.

There always needs to be a balance by LostCluster · 2003-06-27 05:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

With all of the products marketed as must-haves for proper security, nobody seems to remember that security and trust must co-exist for things to work.

Total security is rarely useful. Total security is locking the only keys to the safe inside the same safe. No robber will ever get in, the problem is, the people should have access can't get in either.

People get concerned whenever a backdoor is placed in a software package by a vendor, however, we all drive cars with security backdoors. If you lock your keys in the car, and you're locked out, you can call AAA. Their truck operators know how to unlock your door without the key from the outside, and they effectively break into your car for you to let you back at your keys. Of course, this back door is secured by the fact that you have to identify yourself as a paying AAA member before the driver is even dispatched, which leaves a nice clear paper trail that can be traced back if this service is ever abused by car thieves.

When assigning security settings on a company server, the idea of giving everybody the minimum security you need to is incorrect. The correct answer is to give them exactly the resources they need to get their job done. There are some things that should be sent up to a higher level for approval, things that a low-level employee just shouldn't be allowed to do. However, system designers have to be careful that the approval events are not time consuming and don't happen too often, otherwise the employee will spend more time seeking authorizations than doing their original job, and that often translates into a delay that customers feel as well.

The only way to have a 100% assurance that a system will never be hacked is to just not build it. Of course, that isn't too useful so that isn't usually an option. Once you give any user any access to the system, you're taking a risk. That even includes yourself, as you could either screw up or turn evil from the point of view of your employer someday. The more people you let in, the more risks you end up taking. You can't elimiante the risk, you can only put controls in to limit it.

In the end, the operators of a business have to decide how much risk tolerance they have with their investment. If they want no risk, they should pack their money up and put it in an FDIC-insured bank. No risk in that, but also very little reward. The company that trusts its employees, and finds that trust to be well-placed gets the highest rewards, but risks the penalties for the occasional mistaken trust mounting up.

It's all about the balance. Too little security is fatal, but too much security can kill a business as well...

rant about stupid stuff in Crimson article by The+Toad · 2003-06-27 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe I'll get modded down for being "offtopic" since I'm not making a joke about Bill Gates, but I was bothered by several things in the Crimson article.

First, they leave their administrative assistants' computers (which are used to access to confidential data) apparently unprotected from viruses or their definitions are not updated regularly. Auto-updates are trivial to set up. At the campus where I work, which is *much* larger than Harvard, the default campus-wide policy is updates *every* *hour* for windows boxes. I require all systems for which I am responsible to have current antivirus software with that update policy.

Then, when asked about the situation, their comp services person seemed to think they're doing a pretty good job. They leaked confidential data! This was a failure due to his department's negligence. They only "encourage" their staff to install antivirus software and post virus announcements on a web site. That seems very irresponsible to me. It is their responsiblity to protect sensitive systems. They failed to do so even though the resources to do so are readily available.

At the end of the article they have a quote from the Dean, a comp sci prof, saying that people should use Macs to avoid viruses. Holy shit, batman! Harvard is apparently run by complete retards! How about some *real* and *useful* advice? Like install and update your antivirus software... don't normally run stuff as an admin user... don't indiscriminately open e-mail attachments... and patch patch patch those vulnerabilities!

Some more ... by bezuwork's+friend · 2003-06-27 05:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Combine the visions of the Disney, FBI, RIAA, Microsoft, stupid senators and SCO, makes Big Brother seem bearable in comparison :)

RFID (also on /. frontpage), Ashcroft, the Dept. of Homeland Security, Poindexter, TIA, ...

Re:Microsoft Virus Lawsuit by jasonsfa98 · 2003-06-27 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

By using computers supplied by the college I am sure the student give's up those rights, along with the rights to legal action.

Bill Gates, dissin' dystopia by Zhe+Mappel · 2003-06-27 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Arguments about Orwell's vision have ranged back and forth for over half a century, but seldom have bean counting billionaires been consulted for their opinion. Smothering markets and twisting buyers' arms are properly seen as better skills for advancement in either big business or the mob than for understanding society or literature. Of course, in the age of the MBA president, you might say that bean counting has replaced any more nuanced or enlightened lens for looking at our problems - and when society turns to the savagery of corporate conservatism for answers, I'd have to agree. We're living in a time when the official line is that *only* billionaires understand us.

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.

MS provides US Govt's Orwellian Database? by Aureal · 2003-06-27 11:38 · Score: 2, Informative

People are harbouring misgivings about Palladium et al and so in a effort to allay their fears and general suspicions, Bill Gates utters what to me are hollow words indeed.

A controlling body such as the American political administration would covet very highly the ability to keep an extremely detailed and up-to-the-minute database on whomever they so wished and considering the size of the population in the United States of America today, keeping such close tabs on that amount of people would be a daunting, if not impossible, task. Since the introduction of the IBM compatible personal computer (PC) a few short decades ago, it and its spinoffs (PDA's etc) have become more of a necessity in the daily life for those people who live in a civilized urban or city environment and less of a luxury/novelty/curiosity item as they used to be. Now, loaded onto the vast majority of these computers worldwide is one of Microsoft's Windows operating systems. Here then is the perfect opportunity for said administration - in close collaboration with one of their major campaign sponsors mind you - to keep under close scrutiny millions of Americans with a degree of precision that would have been considered impossible only two decades ago. Microsoft's Palladium software will become all pervasive. It will become mandatory to have it installed on all practically all consumer computing devices which are capable of running an operating system (gaming consoles, PDA's, laptops, watches, mobile phones, home entertainment systems, car stereo systems etc) and furthermore, this trusted (trusted by whom exactly?) operating system will quietly, constantly and discreetly be feeding information into either one, huge database or numerous databases.

Of course, this is all speculation, but we all know how absolute power corrupts and one only has to look at the history of mankind to see that there are few - if any - exceptions to the rule. United States Presidents come and go but the underlying administration/power structure remains and quite frankly, it is probably as Machiavellian as any government can possibly be (although they are unfortunately not alone in this regard) - irrespective of whom is currently occupying the Whitehouse. Once the Uinted States government has declared that all non-TCPA compliant computing devices and untrusted operating systems (i.e. not Palladium) are illegal (using the PATRIOT Act to bolster it of course), then the rest of the civilized world will surely follow. If anyone or any country appears to be intending to "break ranks" as it were, then Microsoft - with the full support of the current U.S. government it seems (as the adage goes; "birds of a feather flock together") - will do its utmost to prevent such a rebellion. For instance, a few months ago, Microsoft managed to arrange to have the US ambassador to Peru petition the Peruvian government on Microsoft's behalf shortly after Peru stated their positive stance with regards to the use of open source software and earlier this week, Craig Mundie from Microsoft met with the Brazilian Minister for Education. That to me alone is a cause for concern. Sure. Banks may do it (although I've never heard of a bank arranging to have their country's Ambassador do their bidding) - but they're banks - not software companies.

As I said before, this is all pure speculation - but nevertheless, after looking at their past track record, I would not put it past them.

97 of 485 comments (clear)