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."
Isn't the amount of money thrown at computer security a little high compared to the cost of setting up a free firewall like iptables and verifying that it works with nmap a little high?
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Day 1: Throwing money at technology. - I have no problem with this. Most of us in some way work in the IT field and this means more money and jobs.
Day 2: Companies profiting from fear. - It's usually the stinkin' rich guys fearing for their luxury sports cars. This means they enlist security companies to safeguard themselves. More money for the little guys.
Day 3: Global assault on anonymity. - This one I have a problem with. I'm a little worried about private companies tracking our movements and stalking us for our money. We have a choice not to deal with that company and take our money elsewhere. But when the government does it, there is no escape. It's either let them do it or flee the country (not a very easy task for some).
The numbers seem to reflect that ambiguity. In a June report, the nonprofit National Taxpayers Union estimated that more than half of new homeland security funding since 2001--$164 billion--is being spent on programs unrelated to defense or response to terrorist attacks. As an example, the organization cited the renaming of the Agriculture Act of 2001 as the "Farm Security Act" after Sept. 11.
"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.'"
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.
As long as he can keep their one-track minds going in the direction that he has been he's going to be able to do what he wants with the money we have to throw at him.
Part of the problem is that the concept of security, paradoxically, works against the very thing that it is designed to protect. Government agencies compete for the same pool of money and resources; not everyone will win the biggest slice of the $86 billion package. There are inter-agency rivalries, "politics-as-usual", and even backstabbing, as each group struggles to even understand what "security" means, and what it means to them in particular.
So, two things stand out to me:
1) Inconsistency in the vision of national security as each agency/special interest group has its own idea of security, complicated by divergent political interests and even hostile political rivalries, and further hindered by the administration's own unclear directives of what constitutes national security (you can't lead from bottom-up; there must be a cohesive, unified vision from top-down).
2) 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 demands of national security will sometimes rely on classified government contracts, covert operations, and the famous "wall of silence". Yet the human nature in this nation is such that we have TV programs like "Fleecing of America" by NBC that will "expose" the "vast abuses" by the government, at the expense of the average working taxpayers. We all want to know, but our very own livelihood demands sometimes that we NOT know. The wherefores and the how-to's of this controlling of information are very much at the heart of national security. (This is part of the reason why something like 9/11 is not likely to happen in a totalitarian state like North Korea, where the concept of privacy and freedom of the individual is absent.)
Does any American truly believe it when they accuse someone of siding with the terrorists? The idea is simply asanine, yet when two people disagree on even the most minor point, I guarantee that at least half of the time, someone will point and accuse the other of siding with the terrorists. Especially if they are unable to argue their stance effectively. It's absurd! Why aren't we slapping people silly for even suggesting the idea?
How is this insightful?
I disagree. There's tons of stuff that I (and many many others) don't feel my taxes should go to.
Here's the neat thing: if you don't feel you're paying enough in taxes, donate your extra money! There's plenty of charities that will do much more with your donated money than the government would. A good place to start would be to look for orginizations that help provide quality jobs for lower income families.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
Why was this modded to a 4? This is an obviously politically motivated and isn't insightful at all.
If you lean left, you'll read this and say "right on!" If you lean right, you counter that the government will always waste the money it is given which is exactly why you shouldn't increase taxes.
BTW, since the poster seem to be convenced that Bush is the only one who would increase the deficit, how do you think that Kerry is going to pay for all of his "I have a plan"'s. Also, when Kerry increases taxes on the upper middleclass (small business owners) what do you think that will do to jobs given that 80%+ of new jobs come from these small business owners who are being taxed. When the small business owners are taxed more they will hire less. When the hire less, there are less jobs. When there are less jobs, less people have money to put back into the economy.
While I agree that it's good to support non-govt efforts like the Internet Storm Center, you'd have to be out of your mind to think that tax dollars are 'wasted' on things like CERT.
I believe that it is essential to have at least one team controlled by the government giving security reports. Sure they can fuck everyone over in hundreds of ways, but at least you can be sure that they will NOT 'hide' reports because it happens to be one of their products on the line.
In terms of cost - it must be microscopic compared to the billions that are spent on other things - and for that small price, you get a CORPORATE INDEPENDANT SECURITY REPORT - which is completely unbiased.
Money very well spent IMHO
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Don't get me wrong, ISC is a great effort and the incident handlers are some of the best in the business. What is essentially a labor of love on their part is one of the best tools for security professionals to use.
But, from your statement, I wonder if you have ever dealt with anything having to do with US-CERT other than their "public" product (e.g. what's on their website).
More goes on behind the scenes than you may be aware of.
Actually, two... there's two things I've always felt about taxes and taxation....
First, I agree that we need a government to form a cohesive society, and that government necessarily needs funds to operate. But the question is how big does the government NEED to be and how much should it spend on certain programs.
Idea 1: Keep income taxes, but allow people to decide where their income tax dollars go. For example, if I was a strong supporter of the "War on Terror", I could allocate more towards military... I think you'd see the pork go away as fast as lightening.
Idea 2: no income taxes, just "use" taxes... collected taxes can ONLY be used for what they were collected for... For example, gasoline tax can ONLY be used for road maintenance. People who use larger and more gas guzzling vehicles will pay more for the maintenance of the road. People who use the road very little pay very little (directly). Taxes collected on gasoline CAN NOT be used for anything not related to transportation infrastructure. Again, you'd see a LOT of pork projects die... how are you going to subsidize peanut farmers with that system?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Does any American truly believe it when they accuse someone of siding with the terrorists?
Sadly, yes. This is pretty big on the far right. Not just your Anne Coulters either. Let's take a quick glance at how this ideology works.
Over the weekend, C-SPAN 2 aired a lecture by David Horowitz, a former Marxist (of the Communist variety) turned neoconservative who has just published a book called "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left".
Of all the absurd claims he made, his central thesis (which he spent very little time discussing) was full of logical holes. He contended that if, as Zinn and Chomsky and others profess, America is an aggressor and the Muslim world does have some legitimate grievences against us, then the terrorists must be right in trying to destroy us. So, according to this logic, if you agree with the left, you want the terrorists to win.
I'm not even going to start with the rebuttals to this arguement (I assume readers here are intelligent enough). Just wanted to point out that this sentiment actually crosses over between half-assed partisan punditry to academia.
Anybody read "animal Farm " lately? I know that the book was originally written regarding socialism/communism, but there are a several parallels that could be drawn to life in the US today. Replace terror(ist) with Mr Jones, in almost anything said by Bush ( or Kerry) and it sounds like something Squealer would say.
Under Clinton's leadership, the budget deficit deficit of 290.4 billion dollars, to a 236.4 billion dollar surplus, in eight years. That is fiscal conservatism.
Actually that was the tech boom. If you don't count the tech boom of the 90's the US economy has been in a funk for at least 14 years. One of the big problems is we don't make anything in America anymore, and we have unbalanced trade agreements with almost every country.
I can find postitives and negatives in the Clinton presidency. However, if you think his fiscal conservatism was the only reason for the surplus and not the stock market boom, you are mistaken.