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.
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
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.)
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!
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
"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.
Say what you want about America, our propaganda system is the best in the world.
Now, if we could only export that enough to make up for the $45B monthly trade deficit, we'd be golden.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
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: