Slashdot Mirror
CNET's in-depth Coverage of IT security
museumpeace writes "Starting today
CNET news is running a
3 day series of reports and analysis
of government and industry responses to the challenge of making America safe. While it primarily focuses on the technology content of these tangled issues, the report also tries to sort out the impact politics-as-usual is having on this presumably critical national concern...there is plenty of muck to rake: "As if chickpeas, lentils and mohair have anything to do with national security. One congressman even stated that a peanut subsidy, with a $3.5 billion price tag, 'strengthens America's national security,'" the 335,000-member group said. "Members of Congress have been cloaking old-fashioned pork in the robes of 'security' for the 'homeland.'"Lots to read here and registered CNET readers can put in their two cents.
Throwing Money at Techology is the title of the leading report for today and that sums up much of what is going on."
Thanks, George!
John
I have no problems paying taxes if I know it isn't going into pork-projects and the pockets of Politicians. I doubt many would disagree...
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
"Throwing Money" at the problem is exactly what some users do on a personal level. There's a huge number of people who buy a firewall, antivirus program, etc. when free tools exist, and when a different browser would help solve the problem immensely. Then after spending $100 on a security suite, they wonder why the computer is acting up. "I spent money to prevent this, it can't possibly break!"
I think this shows how important it is for the community to keep non-govt supported efforts going. See for example the Internet Storm Center. Just compare the amount of useful information they put out compared with what you get for your tax dollars from places like US-CERT.
It seems to me they can never throw enough money at the IT security front to label it "Secure" there is always going to be a hole that can be found. Just like everything else that the goverment deals in they will continue to say they throw all this money on the issue only to have a considerable percentage moved to funding issues that the american public knows nothing about.
If some of the US government institutions insist on using Windows, then they should at least use open source security software, such as TrueCrypt (truecrypt.sourceforge.net).
A split government is better for all America. I support Kerry and the Democratic party in general, but I am *extremely* skeptical about having a one-party government.
I wish we could expect more from our elected officials but america is the house that greed built. It seems fitting that greed will be our eventual downfall.
The notion of security, in a strange, Orwellian way, goes against some of the most treasured principles of this country: Freedom of thought, and freedom of the expression of those thoughts.
The point is, Freedom is security. As you give up liberties so the government can protect you, you lose the power to protect yourself from the government. And history shows that people have a lot more to fear from their own government than from external threats.
Unfortunately people tend not to focus on the large scale threats. Just like a hoodlum who knocks over a 7-11 gets 20 years while a crooked CEO who steals millions is slapped on the wrist, people ignore the fact that the US already imprisons a greater percentage of its population of any country in the world, in favor of less severe but more immediate threats.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You are, like most people, and nearly everybody in Congress, confusing the idea of secrecy with the idea of security. A properly secure system is one with the absolute minimum of secrets needed to secure it. Secrets are too fragile; once you lose one, you can never get it back. Modern cryptosystems are a perfect example of good security. Almost everything is open; the algorithm is open, the implementation is open, the protocol is open, the key generation method is open. The only thing that's secret is the actual key itself, which is only a few hundred or thousand bits of information.
Making every government operation secret will not make us safer. A terrorist organization will be able to find out as much as it wants about our power, water, and transportation infrastructure, whether we let them have it or not.
Our government is trying to keep everything from the public view, despite the fact that it's ineffective. This might be because they're stupid, which is highly plausible. It might be because they're trying to give the appearance of helping, which is also highly plausible. Lastly, it might be because they've seized on this golden opportunity to expand government power and secrecy with the support of the public. This one is sure to be popular among the tin-foil-hat crowd.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I used to work at Law Journal Extra, which was a gopher system run on Pipeline software, later bought by Law.com. There I read that the Internet was based on open protocols and was basically insecure and highly susceptible to malicious activity, which would become a big problem as it became commercialized. Then I became an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine and tried to get them to run an article about cyberterrorism. They didn't have much interest in that although they did run several articles about terrorism and the threat of WMD in the hands of terrorists. Since then there have of course been billions of dollars in damage due to viruses, and the security situation has gotten so bad that a teenager in the Philippines could put together a virus using tools that could bring down major web sites that handle tons of commercial activity, but they've still only run one piece addressing this to my knowledge. Notably the administration has been wrongly focused on the threat of WMD and not basic infrastructure security. This is because of a general lack of understanding about computers among journalists and policymakers IMO.
My first reaction is to jump on you with both feet but you're probably a teenager because a lot of teens have thought of this. So I'll just ask some questions instead.
Re: Idea 1: what if people don't put enough money toward something important, like defense? What if they put way, way too much money toward something, like defense?
How does this make pork go away? This very example, peanut subsidies, has been cloaked in homeland security terms. Who desides which programs fall under which category? It would be decided by the same people who create or at least permit the nonsense that already happens.
Re: Idea 2: How does a "use" tax pay for defense? If invading Iraq has made me less safe, can I get a tax refund? Are you going to tax the air I breathe to pay for EPA monitoring to help keep the air clean? Are you going to tax every ATM transaction to pay for FDIC? Under your plan, will there be a transition from FEMA providing money to hurricane survivors to collecting taxes from survivors for the cleanup?
Since most "use" taxes these days are sales taxes imposed by states, let's get to some more local questions. When a recovering junky steals my car stereo to pay the use tax on methadone, do I pay the police officer filling out the report immediately or should the police station send me a bill? When the fire dept. puts out my kitchen fire, am I the only one who pays the tax or do my neighbors pay as well since the dept. prevented the fire from spreading to their houses? Do the people living two doors down pay less than the people next door? If I buy a 30' yacht,will it be tax-free if I only sail in international waters?
OK, the point is, there's no way every tax payer can be well informed about how much money is needed for any given government activity and not only is there not a "use" to tie every government activity to, very often the people that are benefiting from that activity are the ones who cannot pay.
I call bullshit.
The value of money is driven by supply and demand like everything else in a free market economy. If the government just prints money the value of money goes down and you get inflation. In the end more backnotes or higher numbers on them buy you (and the governent) exactly the same.
That's also the reason why a tax-cut financed by borrowing money is no cut at all... A large deficit drives up prices, so your - oh so generous - tax cut, is eaten up by the higher prices. Why people still want tax-cuts in a time where not enough money is available is beyond me.
Spending less money for the military and frist-strike wars is a better answer.
Vendors collect money for goods assuming that this money can be paid towards other goods. If suddenly more money is available more people are willing to pay more for their goods... Hence the value of money goes down, prices go up.
So... Taxes are necessary because money cannot just be printed, but it has to be shuffled around.
Taxes are also necessary to allow the government to centrally organize: