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."
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.
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.
Why wait?:-)
Given where the dollar has been for the past few years, and the proportion of nerd-related goods which come from outside the US, you are paying for it right now. Not to mention what has happened to any dollar valued savings you might have.
One of the, er, nice things about markets is that when a government makes it clear they are financially incontinent, everything adjusts around them as people try and find the best place to stand to catch the money being pissed away.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Because the tax-payers are transfixed by his bumbling speeches. They apparently believe that he is a better candidate for protecting us against terror. The public really feels that their monies are going to support protection. They just fail to understand that the money isn't going 100% to protect them. It's going to the same old shit it was before just under assumed names with the guise of more security.
Say what you want about America, our propaganda system is the best in the world.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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!
"Then I became an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine and tried to get them to run an article about cyberterrorism."
Do they print fiction?
"Since then there have of course been billions of dollars in damage due to viruses"
Which isn't terrorism. Similar to the number of people admitted to hospital each year after stabbing themselves with forks isn't terrorism. Exactly in the same way that spam isn't terrorism.
"security situation has gotten so bad that a teenager in the Philippines could put together a virus using tools"
Or Minnesota. That's not really a problem with security per se, it's just that nobody has settled on what is the best way to stop dumb people contracting viral infections; large companies contracting viral infections should look towards spending their own money rather than government cash based on a fairly spurious 'clean up' fee, when it was probably cost-cutting that left them vulnerable in the first place.
"This is because of a general lack of understanding about computers among journalists and policymakers IMO."
Well you wouldn't have helped by characterising viruses as 'Cyberterrorism' any more than WMD should include methlabs. Why do you think that people have been generally underwhelmed by governmental response to computer problems?
It's not so much that their intentions aren't good, it's just they miss the mark so much that you can almost hear the noise of hands hitting foreheads across the globe when the latest 'idea' hits the legislative floor.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
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: