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 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.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

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,

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?

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?

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: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.

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: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 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: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :)

60 of 485 comments (clear)