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.
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
Of course. Peanuts can be highly effective weapons in the right hands. Especially if the terrorists have allergies. Or you could hurl the peanuts like small pebbles. Or you could .... um, look over there, a three headed monkey!
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
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).
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).
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.
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.)
...during the gay marriage debate:
Isn't that important? Isn't that the ultimate homeland security -- standing up, defending marriage, defending the right for children to have moms and dads, to be raised in a nurturing and loving environment? Isn't that what this debate is all about?
Link
Throwing Monkeys at Technology????? Will this outsourcing nightmare never end???????
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
One particularly large area where money is being aggressively thrown at is Technology, which is being seen as the solution to all the security problems (diplomacy, better foreign policy would work better IMHO), which is where the article gets the name from. It's not just about IT (or "cyber") security.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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: