Slashdot Mirror
Dept. Of Homeland Security Chooses Groove, P2P
Ryan Barrett writes "Groove Networks has
announced that their P2P infrastructure will power the
Homeland Security Information Network, an initiative to increase
information sharing between federal, state, and local intelligence agencies.
(The initiative doesn't give the govt. more information, it just helps agencies
better share the information they already have.) Groove
Workspace has also been certified with two govt. security standards,
FIPS 140-2
level 1 and NIAP CCITSE. In related news,
Groove's developers have been diagnosed with acronym whiplash."
Surely a product of this process is more information?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
HUH? What hand-holding policy? The US government has no involvement in the CIVIL suits the RIAA filed. The DOJ only deals with CRIMINAL matters. What an asshat! MOD PARENT DOWN -1 ASSHAT!
Definitely. Only those who support terrorism smoke pot, as well.
Because there aren't already enough government computers and agencies that don't understand file sharing and how not to leave their files on network shaes for all to see. At least now maybe the republicans will have a more standard and powerful search app that crossreferencs more machines than having to resort to going into "My Network Places" and just randomly clicking along to access other peoples personal files.
From the linked page...
"Groove jumps to Microsoft beat"
Looking further, it is clear that Groove is comfortably in bed with Microsoft.
So I am quite sure they will "make damn sure this system is safe".....
Its a sad thing, but as the posts here points out, the association has stuck, and legitimate applications of P2P technology has suffered because of it.
Look at how JXTA has been languishing for the past few years.
Cmon folks, P2P is not piracy. It mirrors how distributed complex systems in nature behave and it has the potential to create dynamic, loosely-coupled distributed systems that may just get us out of this IT rut.
How does Groove archive data? Is there a centralized secure repository or is all of the data on client nodes, only as secure as that particular user chooses to be?
Neat in a way, but it sounds like a mess for doing real work.
Really, do you think the general public will hear or care about this or even connect it with the evil music swappers? I very much doubt it.
From their web site: the company has obtained more than $155 million in financing from Accel Partners, Microsoft(R) Corporation
Yup, this is P2P at it's best! With those kind of finantial backers, wonder what kind of DRM they push with each file served? Is it any wonder GWB and the folks at Homelad Security (and ain't that just a very Nazi sort of a name...) "choose" Groove?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So the fact that it's a Windows product (Oh, last time I looked, there where still a lot of Windows users out there.), and they charge for it (Suprise, the GPL allows for charging for software too!), that's all you can come up with?
How about the fact that it includes Windows DRM? Or that it's just another arm of the Borg? That it's probibly just as insecure as Windows?
Ther is nothing wrong with charging for software, and nothing wrong with building apps for Windows.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Yea life must be real tought for a wingnut like you but be thankful you are not a muslim.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
He said he couldn't work for a company with such a gov't. contract. Good for him!
So while the general public may not hear about it savvy EFF-type lawyers will invoke this and prevent injunctions,etc... as regards this incipient technology.
A system for sharing information between different agencies is not necessarily a reason to dig out the tin foil hats! Honestly!
One of the major hassles as a government worker is that everyone has their own database and their own numbering system, and they don't necessarily share well. That's not referring to turf wars--that's just referring to the different systems. The FBI has their file numbers, the Department of Justice uses a different numbering system. And theoretically, the FBI is under the DOJ! HHS uses their own own numbering system, so does DCIS, etc. This is a major problem, especially when the investigative arms of different agencies are going after the same people.
I spent some time as a paralegal for the DOJ, and one of my jobs was to check the status of older investigations and see what the result was or if they were still open. In many instances, it took weeks to track them down, because all I had was a FBI number and I needed the file from DCIS's investigation. Or I might have a DOJ number and need a file from the FBI... In both instances, they'd have to search by name, and that takes a very long time.
I know very little about Groove Networks or how the technology works, but if it helps share information, it truly is a good thing. This is not a civil liberties issue--its an efficiency issue. The Government already has this data--this just lets them access it better.
It's also a bad idea since there are many databases to be compromised. The government will have to make sure that everyone on the 'approved' list will be the only ones who have access to it, and it will be much more complicated to get a clean up to the moment audit trail for it.
It also lends the possibility that the data can be corrupted by injecting false or spurious data into one host and everyone syncing up to/with it.
Neither of these problems are insurmountable, but they should be examined carefully.
This is strange. Through the NSF, the goverment is already pouring money into Project IRIS, a collaboration of some of the best minds in true decentralized peer-to-peer architecture. It includes some of the creators of Chord (MIT), Pastry (Rice), and Kademlia (NYU) -- three of the fastest distributed hash table implementations out there (logarithmic time). So why are they investing in the Groove? Although I realize Microsoft has a well-staffed, well-funded research department (they were partly responsible for Pastry), it seems better to just pour more money into an already-going, well-researched project.
- shadowmatter
Since someone else has already pointed out what the "crypt" is in technicality (part of a UUEncoded file), I'll tell you what it really is. It's proof that no amount of expanded or enhanced power on the government's part will ever make any of us safer from whatever Bogeyman we're worrying about today.
<hypothetical>Suppose you're a terrorist, and you've just finished the final draft of the Secret Terrorism Plans. Now you need to distribute it to your cohorts. The problem is, "the man" is spying on all internet traffic, and you suspect they might even be able to crack PGP. How, then, can you possibly send a copy of the Secret Terrorism Plans to 18 of your closest friends without being caught?
Easy, you bury it in shit.
You take your Secret Terrorism Plans file and PGP-encrypt it, just for good measure. You then UUEncode the encrypted file, and split it into 10 chunks. Each chunk gets posted as a comment to a different Slashdot story. Somewhere out-of-band - or even in-band, say, as part of the previous message - you tell the recipients to start looking for parts of the file in the first Slashdot story with "Linux" in the story text on March 15th.
Slashdot generates more than a million pageviews a day, with tens of stories and thousands of comments posted. Helpfully, your 10 UUEncoded chunks of the Secret Terrorism Plans are moderated -1, Troll, so that most people never even see them. Of those who do see them, most will ignore them, a few will wonder (as you did) what they are, fewer still will recognize that they're pieces of a UUEncoded file, and probably nobody will bother trying to track down all the parts and assemble them. Except for your intended recipients, that is.</hypothetical>
Am I saying that Slashdot is a medium for terrorist communications? Of course not, though it's certainly possible. What I'm getting at - finally, straying on-topic - is that no amount of Groove, or P2P, or database crosschecking, or FBI wiretapping cable modems and DSL connections, is going to find the Secret Terrorism Plans. People coordinated enough to simultaneously take control of three airliners are not going to be sending around "Secret Terrorism Plans.doc" via email.
IMO, Groove won't do any more to fight $BOGEYMAN than CAPPS or CAPPS II. It's just going to make it easier for "the man" to inconvenience the people who aren't doing anything wrong.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
How about the fact that it includes Windows DRM? Or that it's just another arm of the Borg? That it's probibly just as insecure as Windows?
Do you know how goofy you sound, dismissing my practical reasons and then spitting out stereotypical Slashbot-isms? And you ignored my most important reason, the lock-in to an undocumented protocol.
By the way, Groove used to have a half-hearted Linux version. Wonder what happened to it...
Ther is nothing wrong with charging for software, and nothing wrong with building apps for Windows.
Ther is something wrong with charging a lot for software that does nothing I couldn't accomplish in an hour of python scripting around ssh. The needed functionality is so easy to achieve (since the tough part, the security, is handled by existing software) that chances are somebody else has already given away a free implementation. That's what I'm asking about.
If I were inclined to touch Windows programming, I might do it myself...
Looking further, it is clear that Groove is comfortably in bed with Microsoft.
I wouldn't say they are comfortably in bed with Microsoft, if anything their Groove Workspace product looks like a server less alternative to an Exchange. Just because their products integrate with the MS Office suite doesn't mean they are in bed with MS.
aus.music.scrapbook
that's kinda the whole point.
RIAA says that P2P is only for bad evil traders and pirates and goes after the technology creators of the P2P software.
We always said, hey, there are good uses for the technology other than pirating mp3's we just can't think of any right now, but regardless, creating the software shouldn't be a crime, using it to commit a crime is, but having it or creating it isn't.
Riaa says, nonsense, it's a crime as there are no real reasons other than piracy to have p2p software.
DOJ says we want to use it.
RIAA says oh shit, now we have to get the pirates, not the software developers.
all is now as it should be.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
A) Source code, or
B) Linux/Debian/U*nix versions
This is a closed source Microsoft Windows 98/NT/2000/ME/XP pure play.
Have these idiots actually learnt anything about security and monocultures ?.
that does nothing I couldn't accomplish in an hour of python scripting around ssh
andI were inclined to touch Windows programming, I might do it myself...
So get off your high-horse and put your code where your mouth is. Go create a competing product and sell it to the government for half of what Groove charges.
This monstrosity not only sucks up far more drive space that you'd think reasonable, but saturates bandwidth with it's proprietary and inefficient transport mechanism. When you're mobile (presumably the environment this will be used) drive space and bandwidth are really precious commodities. Then there's the question of incorporating Groove content into the enterprise -- it can't be done. The proprietary format means no enterprise data can get to Groove and no data can be obtained from Groove except by manual file import/export. With Groove, you pretty much throw out every other system you have.
Function is far more important than style, and while Groove is stylish and pretty, it just won't do the job that Homeland Security needs it to do. The pat on the back should be reserved for those who actually improve Homeland Security rather than spend scarce taxpayer dollars on shiny baubles like this.
> No sane DOJ employee is going to use his or her official workstation for that kind of recreational browsing. Not worth the risks
Have you ever actually held a government job? It would take a whole lot more than downloading occasional porn to have any risk of being fired.