Slashdot Mirror
Former CIA Head Calls for Limiting Access to the Internet
GMill writes "Former CIA head George Tenet has called for limiting access to the internet to only those who take security seriously and that the industry should 'lead the way' in restricting access. Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?"
An end to anonymity, and that is something I fully support! No one on the internet should be anonymous! It's just wrong.
Finally, we can get rid of all those terrorists, child porn mongers, spammers, communists, hate groups, spyware writers, homosexuals, political dissentors, darwinists, gamblers, sex-ed supporters, atheists, blue-staters, teenagers, abortionists, people who confuse decent Americans by engaging in satire and especially those people who question electronic voting. Finally we'll fix the internet and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there. Heck, we've already got an FCC all set up, we can just put Michael Powell in charge.
Thank God we live in an age where we can finally bring about the society we as Americans so richly deserve.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Create a licensing system for computer users. If you can't pass, you can't get on the internet. Period. That should bring up the intelligence level of the place a bit. And pretty much put AOL out of business.
I don't know if that's what he wants, but that's what he'll get.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Maybe that sort of bone-headed comment is why he's the "former" CIA head.
.nosig
It's going to suck not having any Internet access at the CIA...
Obviously, the power of free speech on the Internet is something for gov'ts to fear. This has been predicted by many.
This is just the first step in limiting people's free speech rights on the 'net and turning it into a bland, corporate organ, similar to today's TV.
Finally!
Publicity in lieu of his job...
Never argue with an idiot, he'll just lower you to his level and beat you with experience.
Umm... free PR from the easily excitable? He's a washed up political hack who needs some press so he can either run for office or get a few more lucrative speaking engagements.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
Great, more beaurocrats thinking that they can solve the (non-)problems of the world. The State sinks its teeth in a little bit deeper, then a little bit deeper, .... it never ends.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."
So the Internet can be full of organized corruption? Pay offs, rules only followed by those that don't have enough money and power?
If there is data accessible via the Internet that "terrorists" could use to "attack" us then that data needs to be moved off of the Internet. The general public should be allowed to travel around without restrictions or control.
Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."
What exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that an open consortium should sit down and discuss how we should build a more secure network that is still able to communicate like the old one? Or does he mean that we should all be locked down with hardware and software tied with "trusted computing" which will lead to further domination by a small group of companies?
Personally, I believe that the United States needs to understand that they aren't the only entity in the world and that they cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about "terrorism". What would have happened if the Internet was this popular during McCarthyism? Would we have had to make sure we were all secure because of the over-inflated threat that the Soviet Scare created?
Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of. No matter what we do they will always find a way to circumvent our methods (ie scanning for bombs on planes when instead they used the plane as the bomb itself or checking for the outlines of guns and knives when they used a boxcutter).
Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?
He wants government control where government control is unnecessary. What they need is to stay out of the lives of the public and keep up with the protection of the entities that they already have control over. Sorry but Big Brother doesn't do anything but piss people off. I highly doubt that the "threat" is going to attack us through private channels over asymmetric broadband connections and dialup modems.
I realize it is difficult for someone living their life in a position of authority in the high ranks of a government funded organization to understand what the people want but that's exactly why his comments need to be fought tooth and nail.
I'll end my rant with: Keep your fucking own data safe from the "threat" without infringing on the freedoms created without government control.
ISPs should take a more aggressive stance to monitering and cutting off customers sending out spam/DoS etc.
... just what we need: further regulation of something that has no need to be regulated in the first place. I wonder if we'll be allowed to leave our homes without a permit once they get done "protecting" us from everything they can think of.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
I thought that US is a free nation, where all sorts of freedeoms flourish. Thsese include freedeoms at all extremes, including the fredom to associate or otherwise. What is this man spitting?
That he thinks that all actions should be logged and easily traced back to whoever committed said action.
It also means that they want some better backdoors built into existing encryption products, but the CIA is having a hard time getting them into the open source ones.
I wonder if the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc has people who help program OSS so that they can incorporate little hooks into things?
...yeah, a copy of bish went to Michael Powell over at your friendly FCC. Super. i'm all for security and whatnot, but hey, by plugging in that modem/ethernet/fiber/etc, you took on a responsibility and a liability. Being on the net will never be completely safe.
...that the 6 users out there that take security seriously will justify the cost of the internet.
Time to start spinning the idea of regulating the internet and invading even more of our privacy in preparation for the latest and greatest version of the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure it's up for renewal soon.
I understand what he's saying and he has a point about it being a weakness. But we need to take care of it in different ways by applying the security measures a corporate network would apply to themselves to the internet. Things such as detection and filtering of DoS's, exploits, etc, but with a waiver for those who agree to protect themselves. That way Aunt and Uncle Cletis aren't participating in a DoS, but I don't have my pen testing filtered by someone upstream.
I do security
Since those Islamic terrorists crashed browsers into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and they sent envelopes full of computer viruses to the Senate and the American Media building in Florida. Oh, wait...
It's because those Islamic Terrorists learned how to fly jet airliners on-line! Yeah! Oh... Um...
Because the idea is easily enforceable and people outside the United States will have no choice but comply! No? Crap...
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
Ahh, this would be nice, but the problem is that most likely the standards set for what is secure and what is not will be annoying to those of us in a forum like this.
Eventually, your freedom to visit the toilet must give way to "governance and control".
Before you go freaking out with you tinfoil hats, read that article's title again. He is the FORMER director of the CIA, which means that now he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us (only with probably fewer computers/components sitting around unused in his house/parents' basement). He has no real authority over anything right now, he just has more of a voice because of his previous job as head of the CIA.
The internet is global, not just national. Sure, limit the internet to Americans, but you can't limit it to the rest of the world.
Free Flat Screen
George W. Bush: I think you meant "internets"!
This is a prime example of Americans against freedom. Why do you Americans stand for this blatant abuse of your independence and right to be free?
----------------
Sadly the kind of stuff comig out of my former and current governmental officals sounds a lot like policies from China or the USSR or some other totalitarian/authortarian state.
Apparently we have to destroy Freedom in order to save it.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
All of the worm writers, spyware developers, etc take security seriously. I mean, how else would they be able to exploit their targets?
The internet, to me, seems to be mimicing real life. For instance, they're probably waiting for a "Digital 9/11" to lockdown and regulate internet usage. As as people follow blindly, they'll probably get their way.
Internet papers please...
Puh-leeze! Pretty please, big brother, regulate my life so I can feel all comfy-cozy and enjoy my ultimately illusory security from the predators who also know more than I do about everything? Big brother, please protect me and keep me safe from the ones you call bad, those who aren't mostly good, defined as blindly following rules?
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
His most interesting comment was "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control" ... A layman's analogy that doesn't really apply, and he never tells us what 'governance and control' means, although we can all take some pretty good guesses...
Just unplug your cable/phone cord, and you've got everything you want!
--LWM
should not be using Internet infrastructure in their core network. Unfortunately, the Internet provides the most cost-effective solution to global networking (no quality of service guarantee until we hit IPv6). I think network engineers have a responsibility to society to ensure that the networks they design can withstand both natural disasters and deliberate attacks by both script kiddies and criminal masterminds like Bin Laden.
My idea for a while has been to require everyone who wants on the net to have a license, You need a license to drive on a highway, why not the information super highway? I think people should need to read some simple internet etiquette and then take a simple test making sure they know what they are in for, and to make sure that they will help contribute, instead of burden the internet.
ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
I'm sure this guy is just attempting to curry favor in order to get into my inner sanctum when the Revolution comes. George, I get your message loud and clear and I assure you that The Party will have a special place for you! Call me and we'll do lunch!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What exactly does he want?
The same thing everyone of the experts who felt disparaged by the 9/11/ commission want. To prove they are indeed experts and that because of 9/11 they are smarter than everyone else and should be taken (read that paid) seriously for their trivial understanding of the problem.
If our weakness is that we are to dependant on the internet, fix that fact first. Most govt agencies have no plan for if the internet was seriously down. So, they have put all their eggs in a basket that they don't control. The solution could be one of two things A) control the basket...can't work. B) Learn what systems need to be redundant without the internet and how to accomplish it. Difficult but more plausible.
From TFA:
He said known adversaries, including "intelligence services, military organizations and non-state actors," are researching information attacks against the United States.
So anyone who isn't Alec Baldwin?
- sm
What he wants is a method of keeping America Safe from internet attacks with out having an good understanding about the technology and the scale of the internet.
What law enforcement and lawyers get loophole in the system where the government can disconnect a person's or company's right to use the internet. So if they want someone off the internet they need to prove that they are not secure thus not taking internet security seriously. Which is a lot easier then proving that they are providing wrong doing?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But he is still smarter than our commander 'n thief...
I think that this could bring about a new golden age of the internet, for the people who really believe in it, and the security of it. Certainly if we were to block access to it from those who are not secure, there would be a new and revived interest in becoming secure and knowledgable about security. Back in the late 80s when the Internet started, people like Sir Tim Berners Lee and Bruce Perens and other pioneers were instrumental in crusading against the sort of exploits we see today. This search for knowledge rather than money is what really got the internet started by the bearded terminal hackers of yore.
I fully support this.
The national media, including United Press International, were excluded from the event at Tenet's request
So UPI/Washington Times didn't actually hear the speech, did they? They only got the quotes from secondhand sources which may or may not have had a bias against Tenet. The other quotes from the story imply that Tenet was more concerned about making the net more secure rather than preventing access.
Limiting net access still makes for an interesting discussion.
...feels it has to right to rule over a global network that isn't even Americas. I'm not surprised. When you steal authority domestically, it isn't much of a stretch to expand that delusion to the rest of the world.
The microsoft OS is just as secure as any other, it's just the people who use it are by and large retards. When is the last time there was a virus released that could penetrate a fully patched OS where the user wasn't using IE or Outlook?
What's next, shut down access to book 'cause people might read controvesial ideas? Start reading the mail so that we can make sure no one is talking about ideas we don't like? Jam all radio transmissions to make sure no one is communicating anything we don't agree with?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Have a nice day!
Doesn't sound very Gnu/Linuxy.
"This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
I'm tired of old farts saying the OSS and/or the net is evil and dangerous.
For the RIAA, CIA, MS, SCO and all I got a message for you: You're old farts and your mindsets are out.
When they are not truly scared about something they can't understand they are FUDding for the survival of some old useless scheme in which they have personal interest in.
Anyone who didn't see this coming after 11/3 (that's 3 Nov for your EUians) was deluded. Here comes the Big Hammer(tm). Let's see the Internet "route around" this one.
sPh
Jean-François Lyotard
That's such a stupid idea, Tenet is an idiot.
Wait, what's that? AHHH, CIA AGENTS AT MY DOOR! HELP, NOOOOOO, AHHHHHHH......
You won't hate yourself in the morning if you don't get up before noon.
There is a reason this guy is a "Former" head of something.
He can mouth off, and I can mouth off. And we both have precisely the same authority: Zero.
What Tenet says does have some truth to it - he is right that the Internet does have some problems. Banks have gotten hacked before. Infrastructure is exposed, and governments need to safeguard themselves and their data. While these are not very insightful comments, they are not really off.
All that said, his quip about limiting access to the World Wide Web pretty much demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the Internet works. It is also possible that the comment was taken somewhat out of context. While it is unfortunate that all of these policy makers have such poor understanding of technology and how it works, that isn't going to change in the near future.
I'm not trying to say that I like Tenet or everything that he does and stands for (like Carnivore), its just that a small technically illiterate quip (possibly taken out of context) does not necessarily deserve the barrage that will eventually be on this thread.
What a retarded comment!
To censor and control the last bastion of free speech.
Since the only news show worth watching any more is The Daily Show it's obvious we can't rely on the news media any longer.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Those who take security seriously are the least affected by viruses, trojans, worms and the like. And we are the least likely to be duped by phishers and scammers. Where is the problem?
There is a sucker born every minute, and two to take 'em. Frankly I like the fact that the targets of attacks/scams are easy targets and from my point of view, easy to spot and/or safeguard against. If we were to remove the easy targets then more attacks/scams would become highly sophisticated and stealthier.
...just like driving a car. Of course licensed drivers that suck (speeders, tail gaters, drunks) are on the road today too, so... that won't work now will it? Oh well, back to my Doom III game. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Ah..hum..well..Never mind..
This guy is just an insensitive clod who lost his job. I don't care.
That said, rather than only allowing use of the internet to those who 'take security seriously', how about mandating software to be basically secure?
Whose fault is it that a XP machine is 0wzeD within 2 minutes of being connected to the net? Should someone be required to know the ins and outs of Windows exploits in order to use Windows, or should Windows come secure by default?
Most people aren't going to learn, until you force them to. They might miss Will and Grace. All George (you pick) wants is a list of troublemakers - the ones with smarts are the ones you need to look out for. Thankfully, I won't be on the list.
Isn't there some other country that sharply regulates Internet access?
Another one bites the dust
The Internet was designed the way it was to survive a nuclear attack--but apparently it can't possibly survive those evil terrorists without lots of governance. Boy, the terrorists sure must have some sweet weapons!
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
That's right--make everyone take a license test before they can get on the Internet! Just like Ham Radio!
The Novice license will allow gopher access only to sunsite.unc.edu, and you can use the 'ping' command with restrictions.
The General License will allow text-based email, sftp, ntpdate and limited usenet access [again, text based].
The Extra License will allow www access [text based], unlimited usenet newsgroup access, ssh and limited streaming audio.
Only the Governmental Microsoft Expert License will allow GUI's, full use of IE and streaming anything you damned well please. Oh, and if you are a GMEL licensee, you *must* run IIS on all your machines, and they all must be directly connected to the Internet.
There.
The statements made here by Tenet are just plain dumb. For one we can no longer control the Internet as it is a global entity and the idea of limiting access to only security minded organizations/individuals cuts out probably 80 percent of Internet users. A better approach would simply be to enforce policies at the US level for baseline security for organizations and work internationally in creating a more worldy solution similar to this so at least corporations/organizations will face possible penalties for not participating in good security practices. For the individual home network security then the solution is going to need to be a much greater govt/corporate/open source community working relationship that helps get the person at home not only the education that computers need to be secured, but also the tools (either free or close to it) to easily bring their systems/networks to an appropriate security level. Making statements like this to the press just spins people up and doesn't really address a more realistic solution to the overall problem.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
He wants there to be a license to publish. Back in the days when communication involved dead trees, the King of England licensed every printing press. That's why freedom of the press was so important in the US constitution. Now Tenet wants the same royal license for the Internet.
These people don't want anything to exist that they can't control. Further evidence that, as I've said all along, terrorism isn't the main threat to them, it's the possibility that we might find out what they're up to and get organized to change things.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Sure, they are out to damage the United States economically, bin Laden has said that's his ultimate goal, and the internet is a good way to do this. But al Qaeda and its ilk are into doing it in a way that involves dead Americans and suicide bombers. The means of attack is every bit as important to these guys as the ends. That being said, the internet is probably an increasingly important tool for organizing more conventional attacks.
I usually laugh when people see the hand of Microsoft in threat to liberty, but this does sound like something they would say.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Mr "Slam Dunk WMD Iraq" Tennet. Please Both the R's and D's think this Guy is a loser. He's just trying to stir up something so he'll be invited on with Bill O'Rielly and get some free phone sex............
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
His species will die out soon, just give him his little soapbox to scream his ideas from, soon hell be dead n we can all happily contnue to surf, blog and download porn
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
That's like saying roads cause accidents and chemical spills because they are there. That is utter nonesense and complete BS.
The internet is the road. And the accidents people are having include: adware/malware, virii, worms, and hacked systems. The internet isn't the cause of this, it is the road upon which this happens.
It happens because companies built crappy operating systems that focuses more on bells and whistles than solid and secure software engineering.
It happens because companies create crappy virulent programs that infects peoples' computers, making them even less secure(ie, adware/malware).
This is NOT the fault of the internet, but rather the fault of the people who continue to create weak tools for people to use on the internet.
Another problem takes the form of weak habits of the average user out there. The concept of security is so absent as to be unknown. Almost every person I used to talk to about security always said the same thing: "Why would anyone break into my computer? There's nothing important on it!" Thankfully, today, most of the people I talk to who have ANY contact with tech are more prone to ask me "Can you give me any tips on how to make my computer safer?".
If the end user doesn't take steps to ensure that their own computers are safe when the people who sold them the computers don't, then they are just sitting ducks on the internet. Their computers end up contributing to the problem.
The internet doesn't need to be restricted. From what most security reports say, only one thing needs to be restricted or re-engineered: Microsoft's Windows operating system(all versions) and the applications that they create(IE, MS OFFICE, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc.)
If MS can become secured, then a significant chunk of the security issues on the net will go away.
Winged Power Photography
OK, it's pretty damn short article to begin with, but I betcha what's driving these comments from someone like Tenet is the fact that more and more of the government's information, records, processes, yadda yadda yadda is online. It may be "secure" (in a manner of speaking) but it's online. The military (DoD) has been mandated to have everything networked - communications is a good example (look at JTRS to see what I mean). Interoperability and accessibility are the words of the day (well, decade) at DoD. So if all that info, if all those processes, if all that is plopped ontop of a networked infrastructure, where the security of the system relies on the security of 3rd party products (i.e.: OSes, app software, web servers, even hardware, etc.), then those 3rd party vendors better be providing an incredibly secure and robust product. If the DoD builds a big honkin wall between its network and the rest of the world's network, you only need one point of compromise to take down that internal network. A chain's only as strong as it's weakest link, right?
"Content's a bitch."
The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.
ahem read the last sentence in the reprt..press was excluded form the event..
Not jsut osme press but all press.
Seems this idiot wants to obfuscate as the crucial technique of security..
would you trust your cc number to this idiot based on obfuscatioas the only security measure?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Mr. Tenet, who retired in July as director of the CIA after seven years, warned that al Qaeda remains a sophisticated group, even though its first-tier leadership largely has been destroyed.
- are-blocked/down/blown-up stuff?
It is "undoubtedly mapping vulnerabilities and weaknesses in our telecommunications networks," he said.
Uhhhmmm... wasn't the entire reason the internet was created was so that the government could have a communications network that would survive, say, a nuclear attack? You know, all that data-can-find-its-own-way-there-if-certain-routes
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
The only problem W and his motely crew had with the Taliban was that it was the wrong religion and OSB was hiding there. Otherwise, we would never have taken them down and they'd be fast friends. Look at all the police states the US has such good relations with. I think there should be a constitutional admendment that the US government, US corporations, and US citizens are not allowed to have trade or diplomatic relations with countries not recognized as having a freely elected governing body running their country, nor allow products produced in those countries to be imported. The irony is that the US would have had to cut itself off from 2000-2004.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
He just wants to wrap all packets with a DNA sample from the person who was sitting at the keyboard that typed the command that initiated the packets.
At my work if you get caught with an unpatched machine on the network, your port gets turned off and your group charged $100. If you get caught twice teh fine is $2500. How about we insitute something like that on the internet as a whole? We could also fine people who open up virus e-mails and who foward every stupid e-mail they get to every one they know or ever knew.
to take their trusted computing BS live. A scary thought is if the government gets behind it, and this is probably where Tenet is headed. Next he'll be a consultant at MS and then he'll be recommending action through his government contacts. Before you know it we must all subscribe to MS-Whatever and use a trusted BIOS (while both will be the most bug ridden piles of crap) and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and *inux will be illegal. Quite scary!
They can have my Free and Open software when they pry it from my cold dead hands! (which I'm sure they won't have any problems with)
-mark
Ooops! Tenet is/was a Clinton appointee (and typically myopic).
Dangit. ah, screw it, let's ignore that part.
A person who is not affiliated with the government or current administration in any official capacity says that it's his opinion that there needs to be accountability related to the internet and our networking infrastructure, since we greatly, greatly depend on it, so that it isn't a ridiculously easy point of attack, for which even short periods of massive outages can equate to billions of lost virtual dollars, and you're saying that this is "just the first step in limiting people's free speech rights"? Even as Congress just recently passed a law continuing the ban on taxing internet access for all, which should be viewed as a good thing?
Get that clown Tenet out of the "intelligence community" that is our first line of defense against terror, sabotage, and other national insecurity. He watched, gathered power, and did nothing but hook up his friends, while Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center TWICE, the Pentagon, dragged him willingly into Afghanistan and Iraq...
Wait, he's already out? And we're still at grave risk? Maybe harsher measures are required for this hard case.
--
make install -not war
What we need is for organisations that need security to set up their own network.
Relying on the internet for anything essential, when you know full well that it's full of malevolent users and security issues, is just idiotic. Just build a securenet. Have proper usage regulations, private ownership, and a security model. It's not like you need a new infrastructure; You can tunnel over the existing internet where neccesary, and have your own lines where reliability really matters.
Again I say! Fascists!
1001100 1100101 1100001 1110110 1100101 1001101 1111001 1000010 1101001 1110100 1110011 1000001 1101100 1101111 110111
Lets filter all the water before it reaches the ocean. No one or thing should be allowed to add water to the ocean unless it is filtered. And lets do somthing about this air polution as well...
There isn't anonymity on the internet right now. Every action that we do now is monitored and recorded for future screening.
u t
The average Joe Blow consumer doesnt know who has xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ip but the ISP knows, it's confidential information. If there is suspected activity from said ip, then the FBI or other authorities can supeona the ISP and get all their records. How do you think virus writers end up being caught? Magic!?!?!?
The limited anonymity we have on the net is for our own protection, you don't want a possible attacker to know where you live.
It also keeps companies from fraudulantly using your information, think credit card theft is bad now, well it's going to be that much worse.
The real reason for the government to want to do something like this is that they are power hungry as are all forms of government. Any government is a juggernaut.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=juggerna
They are also afraid that the truth can be let out and they can't control the internet as well as they do control the other forms of media.
ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control.
He is saying the Internet (at least the portion physically located in the US) must be controlled by the US government if the infrastructure doesn't get down to policing and putting in tighter controls itself.
Is the American economy suspect to attack through the Internet? Well, that much should be obvious by now. More companies are making an Internet presence a core part of their sales, and the Net is fairly susceptible to attack (suprnova is under attack? We're still seeing DDoS attacks?) The question that interests me most is how do you prove that you are serious about security? Will you need to run custom software from your provider that proves that you have something similar to Norton Antivirus and Internet Security? The latest service pack? What about other operating systems like Linux that are certainly open to vulnerabilities as well?
Another possibility would be a stricter control of Internet standards. I'm sure the sponsors wouldn't shed a tear if tighter controls broke things like P2P software as well.
The national press... were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.
How very telling.
I'm sorry to say it, but it's our own fault. I see and hear everywhere that the 'ol US of A is a third world country when it comes to this type of technology. We have states that restrict any type of Internet access competition, by law. Attitudes like this will ultimately sink the country, technology wise. We need to wake up, and quick, before we are left behind.
OOOOH, the internet.
whos the dumbass that modded this insightful it supose to be FUNNY
There is not a CIA director with a bigger record of dismal failure by far. Everything from ignoring Al-Queda's attacks under Clinton (who appointed him) to claiming finding WMD in Iraq would be a 'slam dunk' indicates nothing he says should be taken seriously.
And free up some bandwith for the rest of the world :)
... actually, in Soviet Russia, they'd've felt the exact same way. Not quite as funny when the joke isn't a joke...
Boy, you fucking failed that one by a mile! Don't quit your day job.
The reporter says the press was not allowed, but then forgets to even mention who hosted the event.
Or did I miss it? Can anyone, after reading the article, figure out what and where "the event" was to which the article refers?
Is this the same paper that claimed the Russians were responsible for the missing stockpile of conventional weapons and even the WMD? Does this paper have any credibility left as anything but a Republican Mouthpiece (a la Fox News?) And this gets front page?
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said Friday that access to the Internets should be limited to people who eat beef, corn, and other farm products. " Freegans have no business using the internet." Veneman said, refering to the militant trash-eaters roaming the web.
This works so well in China
Now where is my Cloak of Invisibility
He made a joke. Normally, that would get +5 Funny, except that he's spoofing right-wingers. In /. land, that counts as insightful.
Injecting "Bush is an idiot" posts into random threads is a sure fire way to boost your karma.
George Tenet has called for limiting access to the internet to only those who take security seriously
You mean kind of like his attitude about our countries security?
Could this have something to do with why the Bushies are blocking access to their sites?
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
... Clinton appointee George Tenet...
This is just another more sophisticated attempt to ban free speech and sell it to us in the name of security. Obviously this man does not understand that the real ideas behind our country and our constitution are freedom, free speech, as well as privacy and anonymity. Anonymity is not just important for everyone but absolutely essential to our security and to the work of our intelligence agents. Perhaps his misunderstanding is one of the reasons he doesn't hold his job anymore.
Is there maybe some technique that people can do to counter this kind of fear PR? I guess what I worry about is that this kind of stuff goes largely un-countered in the popular media. The old folks who don't understand the technology and have no desire to understand it will be afraid. My mom, for instance, was freaked out by an entirely incorrect FRONTPAGE(!) article in our local newspaper about how if you have a wireless network it means your bank account is open to all the hackers out there. WTF? It made no sense. However, because it was in the paper, she was more willing to believe it. It took me maybe 20 minutes to convince her that was entirely not the case and that the article was a flat out lie and exaggeration clearly designed to sell networking services from the guy who they were "interviewing." Nothing but fear-mongering and a giant ad, basically.
The problem is, even if you tell your friends and family who may fall for stuff like this, there are millions of others who don't know and maybe don't know anyone who would be able to set them straight. This easily leads to stupid laws and completely misguided politicians. Obviously education would be an option, but perhaps you have to fight fire with fire?
It seems like what we need is to start raising some money for a non-profit (or use someone like the EFF) and produce public service ads, news paper articles, press releases, etc, which spin in our direction instead of theirs. Right now it seems like there is no balance out there. There isn't a loud force to counter this notion that the Internet is scary, computers are scary, and that the Internet is nothing but the wild west filled with porn, violence, and bank robbers. The key is to not just respond to these kinds of articles, but to be pro-active with the knowledge and the message. A few other industries do this all the time. There's commercials that say things like, "Plastic makes it better" and "Got Milk." Why can't we do that too?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Truly, truly, sad.
What more can one say when people (mods) are so brainwashed and misinformed.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
There is some information missing in this report: what function did he speak at, who were in his audience, what was the purpose of the speech or forum? Ahh, the journalistic quality of the conservative Washington Times, owned by the Unification Church leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon. slashdot, please don't link to Washington Times again -- you could have at least done a Google News search for "George Tenet" to find a more informative article of the event.
Linux at home
Internets are for terrorists.
he wants to know who is goatse?
(and he wants a date with him, too)
"I'm Anonymous Coward!"
Federal licensing, of course. Only licensed ISPs using licensed software and employing licensed admins would be allowed to connect to the Net. Large companies would obtain licenses and be their own ISPs. The ISPs would be required to monitor and filter their customer's activities.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
A former government official, with no capacity in government or the current administration, says he thinks that the internet and its physical infrastructure should be secured to protect it from attack, and you twist it around to this?
Bravo.
And it gets modded up to +5, to boot. Only on slashdot.
Would be to take anything that's critical to our security OFF of the internet. Sure, host a website with public information, but keep anything critical on a private network, not accessible via the internet. That's far easier than trying to regulate who gets access around the world. This seems like common sense to me, but escapes Tenet. It's the same principle as not walking through a known dangerous neighborhood at night, rather than taking the risk and then complaining that you got mugged. Sure, what happened might've been WRONG, but you could've avoided the situation given the prior knowledge that you were walking into a bad area.
if the governement fears attacks from the internet, then the governement should stay the hell away from the internet and it will have nothing to worry about. our rights are being torn from us. there is no such thing as personal freedom. I cant drive a car without wearing a seatbelt because some fascist indirectly claims it saves lives. lies. this is MY life. what we are seeing is a slow desensitization of the government taking our rights away. slowly, but surely, there will be much controversy (as if there isnt already).
1001100 1100101 1100001 1110110 1100101 1001101 1111001 1000010 1101001 1110100 1110011 1000001 1101100 1101111 110111
A former head of the CIA is discussing ways to 'control" access to the Internet by ordinary citizens.
Am I alone in thinking that this probably is an indication that plans have already been developed, and that the powers that be are just waiting for a politically opportune moment to launch them?
Remember how fast the Patriot Act was enabled.
Three Squirrels
This is ridiculous! The internet is what it is, an open forum for sharing files, whether those files are text or otherwise. The only reason that terrorists could possibly use the internet to "attack" us is that companies have forced their businesses onto the internet. These companys should bear the responsability of making their systems secure. The internet is not a secure place, and it never will be. Our use of the internet should not be restricted because of the business presence on the internet.
Sig free since 2/6/2002
He wants the genie back in the bottle.
I'm sure there were those who wished to keep the printing press in the hands of those who would be responsible with it, too.
Everything has risks. The George Tenets of the world want to keep us safe by banning guns, keep us smart by banning books, and keep us rich by locking down our borders. The point is not whether any of those things accomplish their stated goals; the point is what we lose by trying to enact them.
In this case, the "border" is the net connection; lock it down and we lose a freedom as precious as that of standing on the corner waving a sign, or of worshipping orange rocks if we want.
The Internet is the future, in which self-organizing communities will engage in electronic commerce, inform themselves on any topic they wish to any level of detail they wish, and at times wage brutal wars against one another. As ugly as the dangers are, they are inseparable from the beauty and freedom that spring from the same source.
Us.
sigs, as if you care.
I don't think Tenet is talking about individual users accessing the Internet, but more about companies and organizations. And I think that he has a point.
For example, the power companies could exchange information about the power grid across the Internet, thus coordinating how power is produced and distributed. But this would leave them vulnerable to an attack.
Another similar case could be the Stock Exchange. Sure you could use the Internet as the medium for exchanging trading orders, but should you? Increased connectivity (you could connect from anywhere) vs. decreased security.
"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."
Translation: There are too many people that find freedom on the internet. Let's take that away from them and monitor everything they do on the internet, saying it's in the interests of national security, just like the PATRIOT act is, even though it violates privacy rights!
So folks, the question here is whether you want the internet we have now, which admittedly is sometimes a big pain in the ass, OR a government controlled, restricted internet where you're always being watched.
I myself opt for what we have now.
come on guys, if we forced everyone to have a firewall and at least make an effort to secure their system through the use of 'fines' we could reduce things like spam and worms. On the other hand, the speed limit doesn't seem to be too effective at increasing safety, just increasing the revenue streams of municipalities and states.
i am so very tired....
In the terms of service, it says something like "any host causing anoyance to others may have its internet access suspended or severely limited".
When a machine is seen to be sending spam or being a zombie, it's net access is either limited to only port 80, and every http access is sent to an ISP page explaining why thier net access has been revoced.
It should give them access to tools to un-mess up thier machine. the user can then press a button which will then make port 80 requests work normally again, and monitor attempted traffic going to other ports. if it's still a zombie/spammer the access is revoked again.
This will cost money, but it'll save money also because bandwidth costs will be saved both at that isp and others.
The data that is stored for determining if it is a zombie/spammer should be impossible to access (if possible) or very time limited so law enforcement can't use it for something it wasn't there for to keep civil liberties nice.
That's the same bastard that's been giving me hell for years! Let's get 'em!
-C. Taco
So now we just have to figure out a way to steal the internet from the natives?
The internet must really piss off "governance and control" guys like Tenet. It's awfully hard to control something you can't own...
Yes, we all should BBN IMPs in our basements, managed jointly by the CIA and DARPA. They can double as space heaters!
That is not what we think or he think, I think he needs to be re-educated. What a moron!!!
I am not completely clear on the context here, but I think it would be a good idea to prevent people that open spam and virus mail just because it's there from doing so. I am not saying stop free speech. There is however a clear problem of stupid people using the internet, we all know them, parents, siblings, friends, others. I think it would not be to harsh to require a liscence to use the internet, not a money thing, do it like the ham radio liscences you take a test to prove you aren't gonna download a virus then they give you a liscence. It can be basic like knowing that there are files, knwoing the internet speed is not the same as the computer speed, knowing that not everything you see on the internet is real (viagra ads, etc)
but of cource they will probably charge an arm and a leg for the liscence make the test very very unreasonably hard, make you renew it every year, and use it to track who is who on the net. but onm the plus you might be able to doa screenname liscence tie in and a screen name registree (anonymouse even?) and resolve who egts what screen name disputes (Bob_13 on slashdot may not be the same Bob_13 on linuxquestions, etc.)
But if we want to allow freedom to post anonymously, thus preserving other freedoms by bringing abuses of governments and corporations into the light of day, we have to allow anonymity on the net.
So we have a choice. Something to remember the next time we want to praise a government for 'outlawing' spam.
Best Slashdot Co
While George Tenet did in fact say that the "Wild West" mentality of the Internet needs to change, the context of his comments were related to distributing sensitive but not quite secret information to public (read: city police departments) organizations.
The biggest point that he made was in regards to Authentication across organizational boundaries. He expressed a vision of information agencies de-secretizing information that can be made available to people that need to know. (His example: Events that were noticed leading up to the Bali attacks are useful to police officials that notice similar "casing" events. But keeping track of who needs to know, and more importantly making sure they actually are who they say they are is a major hurdle to overcome before the vision can be realized.
"Shutting down the Internet" is the Times stretching his otherwise benign speech into something that it isn't. Like everyone in DC does: Ignore the Washingtons Times. They're junk.
No more spam from Florida!
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
If everyone using the internet was truly using a secure computer great. Tenet means secure as in someone's computer won't screw with the US government. My definition of security is, someone won't screw with me. If I implement my security plan personally, it doesn't matter what other people do.
"brxref
leading soon enough to a licence to read
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
I know it's a trivial bit of rhetoic, but I think I should point out a fallacy in Tenet's reasoning. In the article, he said, "ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." For those acquainted with analytical philosophy, this represent a fallacy of convoluting "is" and "ought". Because the Wild West was tamed by government and controls, does not mean the Wild West should have been tamed by government and controls. This is an unwarranted claim. But yeah, it's just trivial rhetoric - but trivial rhetoric that makes his case seem compelling.
Glad to see that a former government official who took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution has obviously NOT read the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Terrorism is the new McCarthyism? Put it in words that today's youth can understand.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
It's a fascinating look into his mindset, which seems to be quite common in people who are in his position - they're meant to be providing security for the country - I've heard similar things from Police Chiefs.
Basically they seem to get so fixated on security they don't seem to really have a grasp of the cost of it, in terms of our freedoms. They see only the security, and none of its social consequences.
Perhaps they feel that their blinkered view is justified, as their only concern is security and it is other people's duty to balance that by fighting to retain our freedoms.
I also think we should limit the phone system to only people who say nice things.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
Slashdot did 9/11. Linux programmers were instructed to not go to work that day.
ROB MALDA = OSAMA
This is not a tech person. He seems to not understand the concept of "connection" versus "vulnerability".
Many of us have been part of this business modernization he speaks of, where companies are now connected to the Internet. True, many of them open themselves to attack via poor designs, neglectful oversight, or concessions of time and money. But simply connecting to the Internet doesn't mean you're on the hit list of a terrorist organization.
Tenet seems to be requesting that tool builders start consolidating authentication methods (albeit through very vague terms). This means a central authority to each permission on what is designed as an open network. Pshaw!
George, there are plenty of "non-open" networks (physical or virtual). Start inviting business to participate on those. Coerce advertisers, users, gamers, and businesses to use it, all authenticated through the CIA. See what you end up with. Crickets!
You see, the market exists exactly because it is open. If you try to close it, you invite it to rise elsewhere.
Let's use a metaphor, because I'm sure he deals in those most easily, being a few atmospheres above the ground level of reality here:
When a few houses are lined up next to one another, you have neighbors. At some point, there's so many people that social relationships cannot alone secure your home. So, you lock your door. Now there's many different types of locks, and they can be picked, or houses can be broken into. But what's inside? People usually don't horde gold under the floorboards anymore, so the risk/reward isn't really worth it. But to use the street and go from house to house is still free and open to everyone, without a "hall pass".
We are slowly getting there. Spammers, hackers, etc are getting higher penalties, and companies are learning to not store sensitive data near the internet. Consumers are getting way of credit card fraud and identity theft (much further behind in progress though). Simply put, the answer is developing organically, just like the net itself.
Ive heard alot of people say that if people arent willing to keep thier computers secure by a) installing patches, b) installing anti-virus, or c) installing linux then they shouldnt be allowed online.
While I dont rule out a "we want to own the internet" theory, maybe he is talking about increased accountablity for keeping your own system secure. If they do want to "block all the hackers", thats about as possible as going to iraq and "shooting all the bad people". Too many lawyers and businessmen in DC, not enough techies, doctors, scientists, pastors, teachers, construction workers, etc.
I think the final comment from the article speaks the most about the mindset of this fellow:
The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.
Mr. Tenet went on further to say that perhaps airlines should only be used for flight by Very Important People, and that "commoners" probably don't need to use the telephone for all that much either.
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
That it's not the people's fault for thinking the software/hardware they are using *is* secure but really isn't.
It's the industry's fault for not pushing for tighter controls on the equipment that provides Internet access points.
I don't believe that people should be held accountable for knowing security inside and out. That's why they turn to the big guns of the industry to provide their hardware. "Hey, it says it's secure!"
Phil
Shouldn't we just ask him to re-invent the internet?
But every Slashdotter on the planet will bitch if this story was linked in the New York Times because they'd have to "register' to read it. New rule of thumb: If a news source does not require a minor hoop to jump through, consider it suspect.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
This quote from the article says it all: "The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said."
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
but it depends what he meant when he said people who are "serious about security" - if it means that the uninformed ignorant people running firewall-less Windows XP unpatched, service-pack less machines infested with various virii (virus, whatever!) and malware are booted off, then so be it. It would cut down on spam, and make the net a better place for those who are left, of course as long as governments don't take the opportunity to crack down on people who they don't want on the internet (indymedia could be an example of that).
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
There's a whole lot of traffic out there that doesn't need to be routed through the main internet -- sure, you can make a little page for some upper level management to check the status of the nuclear reactor from the comfort of his home, but it's just not worth the risk if it means you remove the air gap between networks.
I don't agree with most of the other statements that he made, but companies who connect to the internet need to understand the responsibilities that come along with connecting, and their ISPs need to inform them of those duties, or provide it for them.
In the early days, you had people point you to news.announce.newusers or later, rfc1855 Netiquette Guidelines if you misbehaved. It's now the blind leading the blind.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
homosexuality, pornography, critical thinking, sex for pleasure, condoms, birth control, female pants (women should only wear dresses), good taste, gay marriages, healthcare, social security, terrorism, new age religion, all other non protestant religions and all democrats.
Joking aside, 4 more years of loosing civil rights. All those who vote for Bush thinking they trade freedom for security, job well done. </sarcasm>
This article is just one of many signs.
It is strange, but I realize the Internet is my favorite part of modern human culture. I will use all means of dissent and resistance to keep it free. I have protested bad politics before, but that was nothing in comparison. I care about mainstream political issues, and war and trade.
But for the net, I will protest in the streets, in the office, in my community and online, with my vote, my word, my wallet, my prayers, my dreams and if I can in my teaching to my children and from the grave. I will not accept this.
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."
-- Frederick Douglass
The net is the canary in the coal mine. It signals the health of international free speech between peoples out from under the thumb of their rulers. If MY rulers try to mess with it in any way that oversteps norms of fair government, I will fight. We live in very dangerous *and* very promising times. Killing the freedom of the net is a great move towards the dangers and away from our chances for peaceful, understanding future.
This is where I will make my stand. I'm going to die anyways. I will live free or die fighting.
If he's worried about security, shouldn't he be named Mr. SSH? Everyone knows Mr. Telnet is less secure.
First, if I understand it correctly, he's calling for us to fix it, rather than the governement. So all the "keep government out of it" replies are irrelevant.
Second: "With great power comes great responsibility". The internet gives anyone on it the power to communicate with anyone else on it, worldwide. Too many people are not using the power responsibly.
When I first got on the internet, it was a community. I guess it still is, but it's a community where the bad elements are running wild. It's not the wild west, it's more like the inner city - you have to have multiple locks on your doors, all your windows barred, and even then you may not be safe. I don't want to live in that kind of environment. I want the old internet back. I want a community where people help each other instead of trying to scam each other. I want the freedom of not having to be up-to-the-second on patches in order to be safe. I want the freedom to use the internet without fear.
Now, I know that in some fundamental way I'm bumping against the flaws in human nature. (Fix the people, make them honest instead of scam artists and kind instead of jerks, and then the internet will be fine.) But looking around at the current state of the internet, I can see how much we've lost. Can it be that there's nothing we can do to make it better, make it more like what it was? Can it be that the only answer is "If you don't like it, leave"?
This trial balloon is pretty scary but if you think about it there's no way this won't happen. Whether it's IPv4 or IPv6 all router manufacturers will be required to check the address of any packets they're asked to route against a DoHS list of "registered internet users", much the same way spam blocklists operate today. Hell, they've legislated mandatory 911 access, the broadcast bit for television, wiretapping powers - without a warrant - for virtually every means of electronic communication in existence.... There's no reason to think this won't happen in one form or another at some point.
Voiced an opinion against the interests of those in power lately? You're on the blacklist. Didn't vote for the right candidate last election? You're on the blacklist. Didn't go to church last week? You're on the blacklist. Haven't bought anything online in the last year? You're on the blacklist.
Most people in the U.S. would go along with a plan like this because it would help the children. And they won't even bother to notice that it doesn't really have anything to do with children at all. When the ability of a people to critically analyze events surrounding them falls below a certain threshold, a certain class of politicians and their "message" begins to appeal to them.
What about research academic environments, which demand openness as an expression of their values? Should they be made to toe the security line?
(I do have someplace in mind, but am sure it's the same elsewhere. I don't want to be like the sports press, harping on J.G. and B.B.)
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
Can we restrict voting to people that take it seriously too?
A guy who seriously thought the case for war against Iraq was a "slam dunk" probably isn't the best guy to be asking for advice on anything.
[o]_O
Yea it will be something stupid, like all of the gun legislation that works so well. You will have to take a test, get a license to connect your PC to the net. That will stop all of the honest people from getting on who either can't afford the license fee or can't figure out what to do. The criminals will continue to get on by buying their guns on the street, .. I mean hacking into the net illegally. legislation only puts restrictions on the people who intended to follow the law to begin with. Those who intend to commit illegal acts are not going to follow the rules, whether there are rules in place or not. Give me a break, we don't need to gov. legislating stupid hurdles to throw in our way and give them power to charge us honest people with stupid laws when they get pissed at us, like they do with everything else.
See? He's *so* security-conscious that he doesn't invite the real press to his press events. Alternatively, maybe he knows that his wacko, paranoid statements won't hold up to even the moderately intelligent level of scrutiny that AP & Reuters can bring to bear, so he only wants the lunatic fringe (I know you're out there) to hear what he has to say.
He definitely fits with the current gang in power. Of course, it's too bad F.P. Nixon died because he would be an absolute PERFECT fit.
Note that "F.P." stands for former president, not first post.
I just want to make sure I still get print access to the Internet. Did anybody notice if George mentioned a subscription rate? And will it come with coupons in the back for eBay and Amazon stuff?
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
"From my cold dead hands!"
If you don't like whats on the internet then you don't have to surf it. If you don't want people to have access to potentially harmfull data then don't share it. If people want access to information they will find ways to share it. It's what the internet was created for. Why must they try to control every aspect of our lives? Besides the internet doesn't exist only in the US it exists around the world. Aren't republicans supposed create less government regulation? or do those laws only effect companies who contribute to their campaigns. The regulation of the internet will only mean we will only have to wait for a better median to be created.
when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I suppose you could ask him.
One for boring old farts like business and government officials, and one for the general public.
Instead of solving this with more laws, wouldn't it be easier to hire 601 Blackhats, give them immunity for cybercrimes (excluding spam and messing with finances), and a couple OC-192 connections to share. By the time Average Joe has to reinstall Windows 5 times in 3 days due to the steady release of new viruses and such, he might be a little more willing to learn what a firewall is.
Well have they submitted one? It's a rhetorical question, but wasn't this one of the greatest strategys for proposing enhancements and furthering net technologies? It might just work for them/him.
Our diversity is our strength
I hope it isn't the one I use...
Because the next step will be for all the scared villagers to gathers up this "Internet" , put it in a big pile and BURN IT !!!
Like he wants to vaguely "threaten" companies & individuals into policing others behavior, so that he and his staff don't have to.
Wasn't it the Nazi's who liked to tell their citizens that it's the duty of every good German to report those who they suspected of questionable behavior and/or ethics?
I think the KGB used to do things similarly: Narc on your neighbor and you're being a good citizen. Question the laws and you're liable to be narc'd on by someone else.
And of course both of those examples turned out wonderfully, didn't they?
Seriously... Why Tenet thinks it's ok to make the USA the policemen of the (global) Internet is beyond me. You'll notice that every person they've put in charge of policing the Internet has quit citing the inability to do such a job. Now evidently Bush is telling his people (and in Tenets case, his "ex" employees, who are now seeding his ideas in corporate America) to make it each citizens, and more specifically, each corporations duty to police the internet in the name of truth, justice, and the American Way.
Give me a break... I love America, but this is probably similar to how the aforementioned examples started out too. It's not hard to go from "Well... Just keep a look out for suspicous activity" to "It is your duty to report to us anything that you feel isn't right. Don't worry about the details... Leave that to us."
If Bush and his appointees can't do it (and I think the fact that each appointee that has tried this has resigned within a year, goes a long way towards explaining how difficult, and arguably fruitless this endeavor is), I fail to see how it becomes corporate America's job, or a good citizens job to police his or her neigbors and friends.
Criminal behavior shouldn't be tolerated. But neither should this generic, and largely baseless paranoia that Bush and his cohorts are trying to spread. True, this paranoia does work somewhat (it got ol' whatsisname re-elected!), but it's not a healthy mindset for the average citizen to have, and it does nothing for our collective health to be so stressed out about terrorists around every corner. Being aware does not, or at least should not mean being scared all the time.
To lay out such lofty ideas as "Terrorism's coming to America via the Internet", without any specific examples, much less any proposed solutions other than spying on each other is just stupid and dangerous. We don't elect people to office to scare us with stories about the boogie man, we elect people to office to offer solutions, and to determine the best way to deal with situations.
If the best way to prevent terrorism is to spy on each other, and to have big money corporations policing us, then what the hell are we spending billions of dollars, and countless lifes for halfway around the globe in Iraq? Bring those people back home, throw some Storm Trooper outfits on them, and let's get on with it!
Face it... This endeavor is a last resort for those who we've elected, because their best ideas & efforts haven't panned out. If they can't come up with anything other than vaguely worded threats to be good and keep each other honest, then both we and them have failed (they, for telling us they had a better solution when they didn't, and us for believing their diatribe and electing them).
Sad times indeed.
Well I don't actually "remember" it 'cause I wasn't born then (not even close to then), but perhaps we need a new euphamism for the free-speech haters:
"Fundies", as in Fundamentalism.
Maybe we should build our own internet called 1337net or something of that nature. No www style sites, only boring teching stuff... mostly text based, maybe some bit torrent and irc support. Oh, and no gifs or jpgs. I for one would love to see webdings back in fasion
And if you don't comply and your box is compromised and used to launch DDoS attacks you'll be provided an all expenses paid permanent vacation to beautiful Guantanimo and be awarded the prestigous status of 'enemy combatant'. *bleh*
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I try not to post too much on Slashdot because there are typically enough people of the same opinion as me that I would just be repeating the same arguments and comments, but this article has really riled me up.
I am a doctoral student in computer science, and my main research focus is network security. As anyone with half a brain could tell you, the 'problem' with the Internet is that the majority of its underlying protocols, the things that make it 'just work', were developed when just about all users of the Internet were academics. I can say with some certainty that the originators had no ambitions of the Internet as the commercial behemoth that it has since become. All of these underlying protocols were developed with a level of implicit trust. One AS implicitly trusts that another AS will provide legitimate BGP updates and will be properly configured - it's pretty obvious today that is a poor assumption.
In response to this, researchers have thus far taken an approach of creating new protocols, higher in the OSI stack, that correct some of these issues, but in general these corrections are left to academia and are rarely picked up by industry. Perfect examples of this are the many solutions to various BGP security holes and misconfiguration problems. Not to mention stack guarding technologies, overlay networks, and worm containment (this one is near and dear to my research - see my blurb below).
One of the beauties of the Internet as it stands today is its decentralized nature. It is a global entity without borders and without centralized control. Once that decentralized standing is lost, it no longer becomes a global entity, it becomes a political tool, susceptible to the same influences as government contracting or elections or lobbying or what have you. I, for one, choose to have an Internet where I don't have to have some specially approved operating system to communicate and interact.
We live in a peer-to-peer society. There is no central entity regulating our communications with each other in person, and I don't see why it shouldn't be the same on the Internet.
Anyway, that was enough of a rant for the next month or so.
P.S. I have some interesting research on ways to stop various types of wide-spread malicious activity (read: spam, worms, and viruses [oh my]) on Internet-scale networks. If you are interested, feel free to send me a message or reply to this one.
Hmmm. Let's plug this scenario into my advance copy of GNU Universe Simulator (running on a Beyweulf cluster of Playstation 6s).
(Plays Final Fantasy XIX for a while while the simulation runs.)
Aha! Here's what happens:
And there ya go.
Well, we have to make some hard choices:
If you are going to say something, you should be prepared to stand up for what you say.
To that end, a basic PKI infrastructure where each user has a certificate would be one way of keeping supposed adults responsible for their actions. It would definitely kill off spam.
Encrypted traffic and digital signatures are going to become the norm on the Internet and none too soon: too many people with personal, vested interests to allow an Internet Community to remain as an innocent academic construct.
Think of it as going from a buffalo trail to a dirt road to a multi-lane tunnel. The 'Net will evolve but what will it connect ? And who will be watching the traffic going by and controlling the destinations ?
One thing for sure, these tunnel will royally piss off the Intelligence community who until now has been able to read Internet traffic at will and often in clear text. Next thing Homeland Security, MI-5, KGB etc... will need is billion$ more to buy super computers to crack encryption on traffic streams. Oh for the old days when you could read all the mail using a kettle or have the operator conference you in.
Now to keep the governments and multi-national corporations of the world from assuming control of the whole just to protect their vested interests. Can we collectively teach them to behave like responsible adults ?
So are we willing to do the work needed to regulate the 'Net ourselves and make them conform to our rules ?
D's Ghost
The "Internet" consists mostly of privately funded networks connected together because they want to. So long as you can find a service provider, you're on. Offer a service, create a device, push or pull bits to your individual hearts content.
This is anarchy at its finest, voluntary cooperation of interested individuals. No one is forced to use HTTP, no law defines what ports are to be used for email. Some few governments have attempted to limit or force their idea of what data should be on their citizens (and others), but for the most part if it's known by humans it can be found.
Bureaucrats *HATE* that. The very idea that there is a realm of human activity that is unregulated, that does not have a law defining it, restricting it, making it mandatory or prohibited, drives them crazy.
The only reason that this particular bureaucrat wants "Internet" licenses is because he wants everything to be licensed. This is just what he happened to talk about today, tomorrow it will be something else.
It is unfortunate that police and military types listen to the bureaucrats, and beat up and kill citizens who try to ignore the bureaucrats. But then, that's what the bureaucrats hired the police and military to do.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Unfortunately these days in the US, "responsibility to society," means absolutely nothing next to, "responsiblity to stockholders." Even "responsiblity to stockholders," might be sufficiently meaningful if we had a *slightly* longer term outlook, around here.
The best short-term plan frequently turns out to be a long-term disaster.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"When the Intarweb is outlawed, only outlaws will use the Intarweb."
Person quoted in the article says for US security interests the security of the internet should be beefed up.
Parent poster demonstrates the absurd, xenophobic attitude which US administration seems to be projecting on rest of world at present.
Parent gets modded insightful and funny.
Loads of Slashdot readers completely fail to understand point.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The only references I can find to this story are either The Washington Times or United Press International. All others reporting on this are just repeating their claims. Both sources should be considered unreliable (at best). The Washington Times and UPI are both owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (of Moonie cult fame) and function as a press version of Fox News.
Sort of like the Internet is now.
Then the bad guys were stepping on each others signals and beginning to make a mess of things.
Sort of like the Internet is now.
So the benevolent and protective gov stepped in to fix things, shut everything down, and now you have to get a big fat licen$e to broadcast(blog) in a way that can make a difference.
Sort of like the Internet will be tomorrow.
This isn't about security.
It's deja vu all over again.
So ARPA created it as something to make us safer, now it's our downfall?
I hate sigs.
There's a strange quirk of irony here.
The first big worm was in 1988. I remember it made Time magazine (or some similar publication), and for the net to get press in 1988 was a big deal.
The worm was written by Robert T. Morris <RTM>.
RTM's father, Robert Morris, was a high-ranking official in the NSA; if you've read Cuckoo's Egg then you've heard of him.
What exactly does he want?
Well, probably just like all those other illiterates [i.e. technical, computer/ing, networking, network security, inter(-)net(-)working, etc.] political faces out there who like to regulate those anarchistic people who think the internet is all theirs. How could anything in this world be completely free and not regulated by some [american] authority in some form ? That would not be the world I'm living in. They probably just get the shivers running all over them when reminded the people have a medium where they can freely express in text/audio/still&motion picture/whatever their opinions on anything, and perform almost free and uncontrolled data [i.e. anything in any form] interchange.
He just probably feels like, hey, there's something I didn't (yet) put my hands on, that can't be good.
Well, I have to tell, that I substantally wouldn't be against some form of - not government-controlled - signed/verified internet ID. But presenting such ID while accessing internet contents shouldn't be made compulsory - with the exception of certain agency- and gov. sites. --- But the thing is, when government people start to talkabout internet access and/or content control and access rights I become opposing and offensive right in the first moment.
I just don't like to be controlled more. Thing is, these days the internet is one of those still free places, in one or the other way. It's hard to speak about loosing ground.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
I wonder if he was trying to say that government agencies or systems that are not serious about security should be disconnected from the internet. This would actually make sense.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
That's like saying roads cause accidents and chemical spills because they are there. That is utter nonesense and complete BS.
Accidents people are having include: running stop signs, speeding, DUI, and road rage. The road isn't the cause of this, it is the road upon which this happens.
It happens because companies built crappy cars that focuses more on bells and whistles than solid and secure safety features.
It happens because companies create crappy brakes that affect peoples' cars, making them even less safe(ie, running stop signs).
This is NOT the fault of the road, but rather the fault of the people who continue to create weak cars for people to drive on the road.
Another problem takes the form of weak habits of the average driver out there. The concept of security is so absent as to be unknown. Almost every person I used to talk to about security always said the same thing: "Why would anyone stop at stop signs? There's nothing important on about it!" Thankfully, today, most of the people I talk to who have ANY contact with car mechanics are more prone to ask me "Can you give me any tips on how to make my car safer?".
If the end user doesn't take steps to ensure that their own cars are safe when the people who sold them the cars don't, then they are just sitting ducks on the road. Their cars end up contributing to the problem.
The road doesn't need to be restricted. From what most safety reports say, only one thing needs to be restricted or re-engineered: General Motor's SUV's - all versions and the accessories that they create(hood ornaments, in-dash radios, rims, antennas, etc.)
If GM can become secured, then a significant chunk of the safety issues on the road will go away.
You're absolutely right. It has nothing to do with the users at all.
The internet is the road. And the accidents people are having include: adware/malware, virii, worms, and hacked systems.
Seriously, it's viruses - www.m-w.com or www.dictionary.com
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
This from the guy that told us Saddam was a threat.
Exactly how are terrorists going to hurt me with the Internet, send me a really mean email message? Kill me with annoying popups?
How exactly to TCP/IP packets hurt anyone? We could turn the Internet off today and I would keep on breathing. Nothing important happens on the Internet.
I'm much more concerned about explosives and guns and bombs and fear mongering tyrants like Tenet.
About the DVD, it wasn't quite widely accepted here in Europe, particullary by some Norwegians.
If you can't stand the heat, unplug your modem.
"It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
It's really amusing how many posts there are along the lines of "this just goes to show how evil Bush's apointees are!" Never mind the fact that George Tenet became CIA director 7/11/97 under President Clinton...
Just legalize hacking other people's computers and crashing them.
Result: insecure systems gone
By the time this becomes reality there will be so many alter-nets(tm) available that real discourse will be beyond the censor's perview.
(I take credit for coining the term 'Alternet' - unless someone can find prior art).
If worse comes to worse, we can all start using TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeon (which may have more bandwidth than current technologies under certain circumstances).
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
There must be hundreds of millions of users who don't have the expertise to be serious about Internet security. Most of those people only care about web browsing and simple email.
Why can't we have ISPs that provide them with those services without providing "real" internet access with and IP address and all? In the bad old days companies like Prodigy and Compuserve had proprietary sofware. Most of those have either converted to "real" ISPs supporting "real" internet access, or they're gone.
The other hundreds of millions of users who do have the expertise to be serious about security need some motivation to do so.
Myself? At work and at home my laptop is well secured by my employer, but I have little motivation to put much effort into my home PC. I seldom use my home PC any more so why should I secure it?
Let the flames begin.
Naah, he probably didn't want the press there because he's been giving the same canned speech for the last two months and is afraid that somebody might call him on it.
And we can see how successful he was. Gee, speaking at an IT conference, I'm surprised somebody did't blog it. [does quick Googling... no, nothing yet]
No, we used to be free. Now we're "defending ourselves from terrorists and spreading democracy". We used to be a jingoistic society, now we're just sheep. Almost anything can be justified with a few words from the proper talking head, and that which can't be justified is denied or scapegoated.
World, America has changed. Drastically, in many ways. Most liberals and some conservatives see what's happening and oppose it. But we've been Rupert Murdoched and Karl Roved and Pat Robertsoned out of the conversation. Believe me, we're trying.
I don't have any good solutions. But there's one thing I can suggest.. kill Rupert Murdoch, and kill anyone who succeeds him. It sucks that the only suggestion I can make is a destructive one. But his death would prevent thousands more, and open a floodgate of american politics.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Bahaha people have no sense of humor
All it means is that the internet and it's communications capabilities represent the largest threat against governmental hegemony. Ever. If they want to take away my Internet they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands. Or whatever it was that Heston said. Times two.
Why not just legislate that terrorists must use a 666.x.x.x ip range and that their home pages must use the .ter domain suffix?
"Users who take security seriously" is just a euphemism for it.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Former doesn't mean that he doesn't have influence anymore. After all, Kissinger and Bush Sr. are still kicking in the background with their old chums that started this NWO dream in the 50s. They still have massive influence.
Personally, I don't believe that this could ever happen. There is just too much to be lost by the private sector (meaning that all actions distill down to $$$.)
Also, I haven't seen anyone mention that this is the CIA we're talking about here. They can't enforce policy like that --they can't even operate in the U.S.A. -- that's the NSA and FBI's job to do. Plus, their credibility is severely lacking after all the false intelligence from Iraq.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Since are no real deatils in the article, I guess you can assume whatever you want. However, my guess is that he's probably talking about stuff that a lot of people on /. might support. For example, if a ton of spam, viruses, hacking attempts, etc is coming from a particular netblock because the owners of that netblock don't enforce basic TOS policies to prevent this sort of thing, maybe ICANN should take back that net block. Just the threat of ICANN reclaiming blocks of IPs would probably be enough to close up a lot of open proxies and mail servers.
Then again, maybe he wants to eliminate internet access for everyone without a government security clearance. There's no way to know since by his own admission, the writer of the article didn't hear the speech since the press wasn't invited. I wouldn't get too worked about about a vague article written from second-hand information about a speech given by a guy who no longer holds any power.
It's much easier for a government to execute it's plans if people don't have access to the truth.
He wants to be able to claim that he took the initiative in inventing the "secure internet".
It sounds like he wants the kind of regulation they have in the transportation industry (airlines).
1. Your vehicle (computer/os) must meet certain regulatory requirements (type certs) and license to operate (in a defined area/zone). Must maintain maintenace/change logs.
2. The operator (user) must be licensed to operate the vehicle/computer (type cert rating), restrictions may apply (no surfing after sunset, no surf zones, etc.). Must maintain logs.
3. All maintenance and training must be performed by accreditied facilities/institution/persons. Must be fully documented.
I personally will be glad when this version of the 1950's is over.
...Only Old People are for Serious Security.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
in that you will only be allowed to connect to the internet if your computer complies with the standard and is in trusted mode.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
So, what was Tenet talking about, really? See http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1204/120104c1.htm.
"Efforts at physical security will not be enough, because the thinking enemy that we confront is going to school on our network vulnerabilities as well, and I think the two are inextricably linked," he said. "The number of known potential adversaries conducting research on information attacks is increasing rapidly and includes intelligence services, military organizations and nonstate entities."
According to Tenet "a loose collection of regional [terrorist] networks" now "thrive independently" worldwide by using telecommunications and the Internet to communicate with and learn from each other at almost no cost.
Telecommunications technology for government and business should have built-in protections, Tenet said, such as intrusion detection and protection systems, antivirus software, authentication and identify management services, and encryption.
"I know that these actions would be controversial in this age where we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he added. "But, ultimately, the Wild West must give way to governance and control."
And here:
Former senior federal cyber security official F. Lynn McNulty told UPI there would have to be "some retreat from the Wild West" concept of the Internet as an ungoverned space.
"It has become such an integral part of people's lives," he argued, "that they will demand from policymakers and legislators the laws and regulations needed to protect it."
Tenet suggested that this
might not be enough. "New attacks have raised questions about the trustworthiness of the Internet and Internet protocol technologies," he said.
Tenet suggests a move to Internet 2, a project of universities and private industry geared at advancing the speed and security of the Internet as we know it. The project claims speeds at 300,000 times that of the current home Internet connection, allowing high-quality real-time video and audio over long distances.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
the internet should be run in the same way as CIA networks. I'm thinking something along the lines of every desk having two machines, one connected to a private CIA network, deemed secure, and one connected to the internet, deemed insecure.
This is not completely infeasible, it's being half done already - company intranets are usually behind firewalls.
Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet
It would be too good to be true, heh? =)
Cheers,
_iCeb0x_
"While it is true that acts don't save or condemn us..."
"People are inherently condemned to hell already because all people sin."
Are you talking about the Original Sin thing? That was the deal-breaker for me. I can't accept a philosophy that preaches gaining knowledge is so horrible a crime you should be punished unto the last generation.
I do agree that the media portrays Christian beliefs wrongly... but the media portrays everything wrongly.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Here's the sort of thing he may be talking about:
About four years ago I was working with an Army colonel who was writing an M.A. thesis on the problem of the internet and critical infrastructure. One of the things he kept worrying about was electrical utilities that had control of their grids (including, supposedly, things like the ability to increase power from hydro-electric facilities) accessible from the internet. His concern was that bad guys -- back in those days, it was the Chinese -- might hack these systems and do unpleasant things.
I kept objecting that this was a completely crazy system, and all you needed to eliminate that problem was making sure that some reasonably intelligent guy named Joe (or Jane) had to read messages from a terminal and walk across the room before setting the controls on Hoover Dam to "How long can you tread water?" rather than letting this be controlled directly through the Web. I've subsequently learned that this is known as placing an "air gap" in the controls -- it is standard in high-security systems.
He tells me -- based on sources he can't reveal (hey all you students out there working on end-of-the-semester term papers, don't you wish you could use that excuse?? And meanwhile, stop reading /. and get back work!! [slap, slap, slap]) -- that these facilities have to be under instant control because this is how electricity trading works and if Joe/Jane had to intervene manually, billions of dollars would be lost in electricity markets because these depend on split-second manipulation.
So, fast forward to the present. Who was [nominally] making those billions of dollars? Enron. How helpful. Meanwhile after 9/11, I lost track of the guy -- he's doubtlessly in one of those jobs now where if he told me what he was doing, he'd have to kill me.
Critical infrastructure on the web -- doesn't sound like a good idea to me (though I still can't believe the system is as vulnerable as he implied it was -- like, we're stupid but are we really that stupid??). At least some folks in the U.S. government have been concerned about this for quite some time, and that may be what Tenet (who, it should be noted, has as much influence on current policy as John Kerry has...less actually) is getting at.
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
I wouldn't say it is weak security habits per se, rather that most people believe that the information the computer contains is the only thing of value. If you think of a computer as a specialied television, then that type of thinking make sense in a way; a television has no innate value other than in the information/entertainment it provides. A computer is not a television, however, because it has things of value other than information: CPU cycles and network bandwidth. Until "normal" people start to think of these things as having value (which they intrinsically have, otherwise you wouldn't be paying for them in electricity costs and access fees), security is never going to get any better.
I don't know if you have posted like that before or even how to know who you are, but you ROCK. I have seen posts like this before and they were good too. Keep up the good work!!
Which distro does Linus use?
Freedom should come before security. Terrorists want americans to lead less enjoyable lives. the internet is freedom, american is freedom. The [former] head of the CIA should take this into account before making silly comments.
The threat isnt within the US its from the middle east.
Ive been shocked 2 times today by storeies ive read.
#1) Informatin from tortures of captives can be used as evidence.
#2) This story.
Freedom is declining by the day, pity...
I love these posts!!!
Which distro does Linus use?
Web surfer calls for former cia official to just shut the hell up.
Get up!
Don't you listen to Father Bush?
Tenet was appointed by Clinton. Tenet approved of CIA operatives who openly attacked Bush, wrote books condemning Bush foreign policy, and in general, ran an operation that was nothing more than a rogues country club.
Tenet's position here is consistent with current bureaucratic thinking (centralize control over commerce in the Federal government) that began with the US Supreme court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn.
Legitimate critism of Bush should be applied for not being radical enough in opposing central control of the economy. In Bush's defense, he has his hands full with a Federal government out of control (think the CIA is the only agency that acts in opposition to the needs and will of the people? DOE, IRS, DOA, etc. have all spun free from rule by the people and instead work to rule the people).
Perhaps the worst thing about Tenet's proposal is that central control simply does not work in opposition to decentralized threats. Consider the Internet as an evolving immune system; Tenet's solution is to create a bubble and "keep all the germs out." Unchallenged, these systems will be protected briefly, and then completely overwhelmed in a catastrophic loss. Implementation of Tenet's proposal would require adoptation of centralized standards, which increases the homogeneous nature of the Internet. Students of catastrophic failure in homogeneous systems often point to the Ireland potato famine of the 19th century as a classic example of why this centralized, command-driven model simply cannot handle descentralized, organic risk.
Tenet's a fool and his agency was an unfortunate abuse of taxpayer money. Tenet is "Microsoft will tell us what security model to use, and we'll make the world security by making a law requiring its use" model. Hopefully some minimal change will occur out of the Bush overhaul. If you're pro-security and anti-centralization, you should support this administration's efforts.
wow i almost took that a bit too seriously. i was about to get heated.
The Wolfkin
"free PR from the easily excitable? He's a washed up political hack who needs some press"...
/. users who like to say, "If you're doing nothing wrong, why are you concerned about being monitored?"
"Before you go freaking out with you tinfoil hats...now he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us"...
"don't get your undies in a twist over this - there's nothing untoward going on here"...
Wrong. It's called a "trial balloon": have the idea publicly proposed by someone from whom the Administration can easily disassociate itself, in case public reaction is overwhelmingly negative.
"with a waiver for those who agree to protect themselves"...
"His idea will not work...Users of email will not put up with it...Requires too much cooperation from everybody at once...Lack of centrally controlling authority...Jurisdictional problems...investment in protocols...illiterate politicians...Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem"...
Wrong. These are precisely the reasons which can be used to justify legislation requiring *centralized* measures, e.g. requiring service providers to install monitoring at all links entering the country or originating from internal users.
It would require no changes in protocols, etc.
"the USA cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about terrorism"...
The USA doesn't need agreement from others to impose this on links passing within the USA.
"the US seems to continuously invent new means of suppression and export them around the world...Regulation of the internet starts here, just like DVD encoding, DMCA, patriot act, etc. It becomes fashionable because the USA set the standard"...
Exactly. And, from imposing it only within the USA, it's not a big step to extend it to embargo links from countries which don't cooperate -- just as the USA now requires USA-bound ocean shipments to be vetted at the originating location.
Tenet said, "ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control".
This is what it's really about, i.e. a governance mentality.
This mentality is about, not just "terrorism", but also about IP, porn, leaks from whistle-blowers, etc.
A good insight into this can be gained by reviewing the USA's current campaign to imprison porn-makers on the grounds that porn is accessible even to a single offended constituency anywhere in the USA.
The US Constitution can NOT be used to protect against such monitoring, for two reasons:
1. Mere monitoring won't be ruled to be censorship, any more than the existing monitoring of telecommunications by the National Security Agency.
2. Likewise within the NSA model, monitoring won't be ruled to be "unreasonable search".
Keep in mind that censorship doesn't need to be explicit in order to be effective: the mere public knowledge of the monitoring can have a significant suppressive effect.
The worst thing about this is that "we" (the community of objecting users) have no way to escape to an alternative venue:
-- authorities will rule that any alternative venue also poses a security threat, since an alternatively-connected PC can simultaneously be connected to the existing net.
-- authorities *and* the public will regard the mere act of participation in any alternative venue, as evidence of nefarious intent, just like that subset of
There are few philosophical objections (or none) which will be able to withstand the power of propaganda which combines personal security fears with invocation of the sacred virtues of preservntion of "values", "protection" of children, and international commerce.
This guy was the head honcho for a couple of things called NIPRNET, SIPRNET and JWICS. These are defense networks for nonclassified, secret and top secret information. Additionally, there are a few others above JWICS that are even more trusted and restricted.
Now if Mr. "It's a Slam Dunk!" can't figure out that he could run all his sensitve stuff through SIPRNET or JWICS, where access is restricted to those with security clearances, he should refund the salary he collected over the past seven years for being an incorrigible fsck-up. He OWNED the 'internet for the responsible' for seven friggin years, and he thinks it's necessary to create somethibg else???
Perhaps he should have asked his co-speaker at the conference, Jamie Gorelick, who probably could have given him a clue. She had access to at least SIPRNET while she was on the 9-11 comission busily trying to blame others for the policies she personally instituted at USDOJ.
That conference was a suck-up to the discredited and failed. I can't understand why anyone is inclined to take anything coming from that non-event seriously.
Though perhaps not practical, it would be neat to see a "driver's license" for the internet. Done "correctly", it could still be anonymous (which may be asking for the impossible if gov'ts are invovled).
Best quotes from article:
/. questions "What does he mean by that?" - Very simple. The "buil-in risk management" is simply the ability to spy on Americans in more inventive and easier ways than now. This is not about protecting freedom, democracy or fighting terrorism. It's not even spying about people abroad, since these restrictions can't be enforced. The jackbooted thugs want more control like always. Other than the form, there is nothing new here.
"when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability"
and
"but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control"
Wouldn't you like that, George. Achille's Heel my ass! Seriously, people, how the hell are the non-existent bad guys going to invade are Sacred Freedoms (tm) and the American Way of Life (tm)? Spam us to death? Everything *really* important is on physically separate networks. And if Tenet doesn't want Al Quaida accessing Google's Keyhole, that's just too damn bad - if there is the technology to do it, it will be done, like it or not.
The way to stop "terrorsits" is to stop pissing people off all over the world. But that's another subject. So, to answer all the
Before you dismiss "vague notions" - consider the phrases "War on terror" and "No child left behind". The first of these nonsense rubrics was used to justify unconstitutional searches (among other things) and the second was used to get names and addresses for Selective Services. These slimeballs are entirely without shame.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
I am a CompSci student as well and I would be interested in reading about your anti-malware research.
isn't this the same guy who took top secret documents home on his insecure laptop?
Thank you for your opinion, sir. We'll give it the attention it deserves.
Now where did I put that pesky trashcan?
Yeah, right.
At my current job, we have websites that farmers use to manage their purchases of chemicals. At my former job, our customers were about a thousand physicians offices, using our website to do referrals and eligibility checks. All of corporate America is dependent on email and the Web, and consumer e-commerce is a huge part of the economy - restrict internet access, and you have to kill Amazon, EBay, and Ameritrade.
So, sure, plunge us into a depression and make us a permanent economic backwater, all because you're scared of terrorists. Certain bearded assholes in dirty little Afghan caves are gonna be happy beyond their wildest dreams, if you can get this to fly - but you won't.
Why do you worship someone who feels you are inherently worthless treats you worse than dirt until you appease his angry vanity and beg for forgivness for "crimes" caused by a human nature that he obviously designed? I see nothing of positive value in such a relationship. There is no love in a relationship built on substitutionary forgiveness, fear and subservience. I'm sorry you feel so lonely but turning to barbaric mythologies isn't the answer. You really need to find some friends in the here and now who will care for you, and get off of being dependent on superstition. Please, think of yourself. You're not a second class citizen in the universe.
It would make more sense, and preserve more freedoms to identify the critical infrastructure they are talking about, and remove them from the "public internet", ala internet2... This is obviously the next salvo in an ever-expanding war on freedoms being perpetrated by the united states government on it's own people. They could save a lot of time and money by copying China's system. (More outsourcing?) Home-brewed regional wireless networks without dependency on the current infrastructure, with automatic anonymity built in would be a great help.
How ironic that internet was originally created as a response to the fear of war, now they want to take the internet away as a response to the fear of war.
I'm sure that China would be happy to work with the US in developing measures to prevent undesirable elements from exploiting the Internet. They have a lot of experience in that area. I imagine that they could also provide valuable. They could probably also provide us with valuable suggestions as to how to revise the Bill of Rights to further improve our security.
I know that ordinary CIA employees have to wait 10 years after leaving the Agency before publishing any books, and that any work they publish (books, magazine articles, etc) has to be approved by CIA censors prior to publication. I don't know if those exact rules apply to the DCI, but I imagine that simiilar ones do. That means anything he says has at least been reviewed by the current Administration. Reviewed does not necessarily mean approved, but it does mean that if it were massively contrary to admin policy it would stand a good chance of being killed.
sPh
Lets see the biggest player in industry currently is Microsoft. Should we trust them in leading the way in cutting access based on security?
you can and should ignore it.
Some companies already use "quaranteen" methods to keep their networks clean.
When you power on your PC in the morning, it connects to a "restricted network" until it's passed an "am I secure" test. Only then is it connected to the "real" network.
I can see ISPs doing this for customers that don't have hardware firewalls. It won't work as well with firewalled machines but hey, those aren't the ones we are worried about.
This should NOT be enforced by a special law, but rather by ISP contracts: "You will use a hardware firewall or you will use our quarenteen mechanisms, or you will find another ISP."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If we were to accept Tenet's logic, wouldn't that mean the US government will no longer engage in WMD research since it has a long history of security lapses and thefts of classified material by foreigners?
Let's just say He is the truest form of libertarianism ;-)
Libertas in infinitum
In the cited Washington Post article, George Tenet is quoted referring to network vulnerabilities, security standards, risk management, improving the security of consumer software, and concerns about protecting the national infrastructure.
Nowhere is there any mention of eliminating anonymity, invading privacy, or limiting access to the Internet, except vaugely in one sentence that contains no quotes and seems to have been invented by the reporter, Shaun Waterman.
Apparently George Tenet, who is not a Government official, wants to improve security (and thereby, your privacy) in order to protect against threats to the network. I think that might be "controversial", as he puts it, because it would place higher standards on those who create network software for corporations (companies like Microsoft, SUN, and IBM). I wonder what Shaun Waterman wants?
At least, the TS/SCI-cleared folks I know in the IC do. :)
-tWB
Until someone who incites terror has the ability to travel through the internet and shoot me in the face through my computer screen, I will doubt that the internet is an "Achilles' heel" to the world.
Here in Texas, if you get an A or B in driver's ed, you are exempt from the driving test. Driver's ed does require about 8 hours of driving, so there's presumably some check that you're not a complete moron, but it's not a very high bar.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Solaris, Netware, Commodore 64s... They'd even have to ban themselves.
Because THEY don't take security seriously.
They'd have to ban the Internet because the Internet was never originally designed with security in mind, rather, it was designed with redundancy in mind.
Rather, they would have to ban idiots. And e-commerce would die because the idiots make up the majority of spenders.
It took decades of horrible deaths on the highways before governments mandated safety regulations in motor vehicles. And "cyber-tastrophies" don't cause deaths, nor have I seen a recorded insurance claim over computer security problems.
As much as I want to make everyone security-aware, I'd rather the Internet's users choose to become security aware. We're not at the point yet where public service and public safety really depends on Internet access. Until then, we'll continue to have the idiots driving on the "information highway."
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us
Just like us except he has intimate knowledge of the most highly secret intelligence reports of the US.
Read between the lines here, folks.
Gedankenexperiment - what would do more economic damage - a couple of planes crash into a skyscraper or 40% of the nation's economic data being erased?
We all know how well small and medium businesses backup and archive their data. And what OS most of them use. And how secure that OS is. And how isolated from the Internet those machines are.
What's harder - launching a massive worm attack on the US Windows Business Infrastructure or sneaking in the country and hijacking a bunch of airplanes? Which is being defended against? Do the Attack Tree Analysis.
al-Qaeda was going for shock and awe and got massive economic destruction by accident - UBL was reportedly very pleased by this side-effect.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The real problem is websites that should be secure don't take security seriously. When knowledgeable geeks complain, something should happen. Nowadays, when a website screws up, Customer Support tends to say "It's your fault since you don't use IE". If sloppy sites don't fix their own problems, whichever arm of the government regulates their industry should force them to. Since no arm of the government regulates free speech, that shouldn't be an issue unless they make some new laws, but they already have the power to shut down dangerous financial and many other websites. Maybe they should use it.
/. and other places where security exploits get reported quickly.
Since User -> Customer Service doesn't work, maybe
User-> Government Regulator -> Regulated Company
should be set up
Or maybe the CIA should just read
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Read the bible? Which one? In what language?
Ever been to a subtitled foreign language movie where you know and understand the foreign language? You will notice quite often that what is said differs from what is translated.
Which may explain why "It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle" makes more sense than "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."
Accidents people are having include: running stop signs, speeding, DUI, and road rage. The road isn't the cause of this, it is the road upon which this happens.
.
.
.
The road doesn't need to be restricted.
Sir, may I see your driver's license and registration please?
Sir, please step out of the car......
http://www.churchad.com/Preview.cfm?Name=802G
that HE will not be allowed internet access since he has proven to not take SECURITY seriously.
...
After all he is quitting and one wonders why.
Lets seeee.... He fscked up on 9/11 . He gave the Pres incorrect info on WMDs in Iraq and
Now states publicly that the Iraq war is WRONG.
I say again...He does not take Security seriously.
Why then should anyone listen to him?
The main social benefit of a driver's license is that, on average, drivers are less dangerous (note I didn't say completely safe) than if they never had to take a driving test. There are lots fewer accidents than there otherwise would be.
In the same way an internet license, based on an internet security test might improve security and safety. Obviously it won't make it perfect, and nothing _ever_ will. But it could serve to greatly reduce the number of zombie spammer machines and spyware victims. Developers and corporations would have to hold the security equivalent of a Commercial Driver's License to distribute (free or otherwise) software, or connect their corporate site to the internet.
Here is a short summary: "CIA must monitor every Internet user or terrorist will terrorise us or something". Signed - former CIA director.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
steal from dumb, give to the clever
i've always considered spam/phishing/etc to be a "stupid people tax"
What it really means is that you won't be able to access the internet unless you use a Certified firewall appliance that is only sold by Microsoft for a modest fee.
While this may be based on the best of intentions, do not think for a second that the final objective will be to limit access to the internet to only those with enough funds to afford the licensing.
Rememeber, once upon a time Television and Radio broadcasting was FREE. Now it's extremely expensive because of licensing costs. What Tenet proposes will become a case for selling IP addresses to user on an Auction basis. And if you can't compete, you don't get the IP. Static IP's will cost MUCH MORE
Without some serious effort to block Big Business, this will be the end of the internet in terms of freedom of use, access, and expression.
Realizes he's no longer CIA head, and that even if he were STILL CIA HEAD, he wouldn't have the authority to mandate internet access restrictions, since the CIA is restricted to foreign affairs.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
"Former CIA *Head*..." Strange, I always thought the CIA refused to hire "Heads" (those who used lysergic acid diethylamide)...
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
Where are the moderators? These stories should be (Score: 5, Scary)!
--LWM
And maybe that's something congenital I should get checked out. Mr. Jesus had some good things to say about living & such, but he should have stopped there. From what I've seen, theologies that venerate an afterlife tend to cheapen life itself.... and we've got enough of that already. It's not a long road from "I and my community are saved/good/favored because we believe X" to "Screw 'em, they're just a bunch of pagan wogs". This trait, like much else, is "just there"; it doesn't need religion to manifest... but they often heterodyne.
As for putting yourself above God, why not? You find out pretty quick what's what. Children do this all the time... but they are not punished unto the last generation, etc... unless you consider their kids fit punishment. :) Original Sin is a terrible concept -- not because it's wrong, but because it's not used to help people understand their own nature, it's used as a bludgeon of control.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
First of all, let us remember that the Internet started out as a methof or reliable communication which could survive a nuclear attack. The Internet WAS the plan for when whatever else was down. Unfortunatly, stupid people and commerce have infected it. I don't see anything wrong with limiting stupid people and commerce from the Net. They don't really need it anyway. Hell, I don't even actually ever DO anything... just Slashdot, porn, gaim, and downloading trivial pieces of crap software. Maybe try and buy something once in a while. My life would probably be better if I didn't sit around and gAIM people, but instead went out and did shit with them. My life might also be better without Linux. It would definatly be better without Slashdot and the stupid banner ads.
I hope you already had that typed out somewhere as a form, because otherwise, you've got way too much time on your hands.
Yeah, and we should burn the books, too...
Who did you say this guy worked for? CIA? Are you sure it was not the KGB?
Last I checked, the internet has performed so well because of its decentralized, "stupid" protocol. If Mr. Goss (Head CIA dude) decides to screw around with the way the basics of how the internet works (this is about the only way you can decentralize and take away relative anominity from the internet) most every protocol/program/service/hardware developed will go out the window (I dont think any firm will be happy with this).
I guess this is what happens when you have asshat politicans who care more about power and control than freedom and common sense.
To borrow a phrase from Dennis Hopper:
Fuck you, you fucking fucks.
Seditously as always,
Kilgore Trout, CEO
You first.
Nathan's blog
I remember in the old days when the Unix philosophy was "that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted". And I remember when Americans used to think " Innocent until proven guilty". Of course, I realize that these days are gone, never to return, but I do wonder whether Mr. Tenet misunderstands the Internet, or whether the comments reported to the reporter ( who wasn't allowed to the event, after all) misinterpreted Mr. Tenet.
I don't see an easy way to deny access to the Internet to untrusted users, for the folowing reasons. First, as long as people can connect a modem to the POTS and find, or run, a DNS server
there is no way to totally prevent access from a clever user, even in the US. Second, even if there was a way to shut down US POTS access, the Internet is not an American property, it is global and governed by standards that are outside anyone jurisdiction. The design of the Internet is, in fact, to prevent the kind of control he envisions. Governments and Industry COULD design a new network with protocols that denied access without trust keys, but I don't see how they could kill off the one that they have. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?
That said, you could evolve a dual internet scenario, a commercial and closed net and a free and open net that would be increasingly (A) marginalized or (B)Used in the original, non-commercial way as a medium of communication, rather than advertising. But as long as you can run IP v.4 and get a phone call out you can't eliminate the old internet.
You could make it costly and painful for the rule followers to use, but I don't think that was the idea.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
To be honest, I dont really think he knows WTF he is asking for, or the scale of the problem he thinks needs solving.
And to be honest, the only way anyone in the industry could even attempt to deliver what he is asking for, is exactly that - stop connecting machines running software by MS to the Internet, and start disconnecting the ones that already are.
Kind of like a "credit check", or at least start having them offer more integrated services that will do them for the people that can't do it for themselves.
What is a blue-stater?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
need I say more?
It's also ok to own slaves as long as they are gentiles.
I didn't know that the US government could prevent me from logging on to the internet, even though I'm not a US citizen. Spooky.
This is yet another proof that the US goverment is semi-fascist. What ever happened to freedom of speach?
reality....
Let me say that again...
Religion is an easier concept for people to wrap
their brains around than reality.
Remember 'Science' class when you were a kid?
The one where they explained that the atom was made up of
only neutrons, electrons and protons?
Why? because it's MUCH easier for kids to understand
when it's simplified.
Religion is a dumbed down concept of true reality
that's simplistic enough for the general population
to understand and be indoctrinated (lock-stepped)
into.
Don't believe me? *shrug* That's your problem.
Religion provides a system that promotes peace of mind.
It really doesn't matter that it's a placebo, does it? It works *shrug*
The fact that it's killed more people than natural disasters
and disease (through religious wars and persecution) really shouldn't bother you... should it? LOL
Wake up people... over 90% of the world are truly robots that only react to what life throws at them.....
You really don't conciously think very many things through on a daily basis.
Still don't belive me and want proof?
There are wars going on right now.. yes?
'Nuff said. *shrug* If the population of the world
were TRULY awake... we would execute (or at least
have them committed) any leader that proposed combat
to settle a dispute.
People who are awake don't care if you call them sheeple... they know the truth.
Sheeple who are called sheeple really pitch a fit. *shrug*
Which are you?
Personally, that's a Red State dream I'd like to see come to pass.
From a safe distance. [note: there may not be one for residents of this planet]
Tech Public Policy stuff
OMG! This article had 666 comments! That is until I posted in it! MWAHAHAHAHA
There is no sig
Sir, may I see your driver's license and registration please?
"I don't have any."
Sir, please step out of the car......
"What car? I'm walking."
Cars are licensed because they are horribly dangerous crackpot contraptions that are likely to kill people if the operator's attention wanders for a moment.
There are computer systems like that, and I'd be happy to require systems like industrial control systems or life support and medical diagnostic equipment to be certified for the environment they're expected to operate in. Of course that would mean "no routed connection to the public internet is permitted while operating this equipment" in most cases.
You couldn't find 4 fucking airliners before they plowed into bldgs, George. Who the fuck are you to ratchet up yet more opppression? Fuck you and shit on your grave.
If Comcast wants to make me demonstrate that I know basic networking security before they sell me bandwidth, that's fine. That's well within their rights, and it might actually in my best interest since my rates would go down (they'd need less of a tech-support staff).
However, why exactly is this anything anywhere NEAR the government's business? The Internet, whatever military origins it might have had, is now a mostly private network. Two people, with two computers, agree to connect wires between them and carry traffic. The government's role in this is solely to prevent crimes (i.e. fraud) and to settle contract disputes. They have no business at all restricting who can contract with whom to run wires between what and carry data, "just because it's the Internet."
Don't get me wrong: meatspace laws against fraud, unauthorized access (cracking), and the like still apply over the Internet, just as they would apply to transactions conducted in person. But this is equivalent to the government saying "Nobody can talk to Mr. Zhang or agree to carry messages for him, because he doesn't speak English well." The fact that it's over a wire makes no difference.
Here's an actual cut & paste (with boldface added) from the home page I got a few minutes ago when I sat down & started firefox:Coincidence or clue?
What does George mean by "the industry"?
Given that he has not ( to the best of my knowledge) demonstrated himself to be well-informed on Free/OS software, I presume he is referring to our friends in Redmond.
For "those who take security seriously" we can largely read "microsoft customers". If MS excludes the security-ignorant, then that's their 90% monopoly fucked, isn't it?
Of course, my OS doesn't come from "the industry", mine comes from a community, so I don't have to give a shit, do I?
This is a common apologist comment.
There's a paradox that arises out of this though.
Assumption #1 - We have free will because God loves us so much.
Assumption #2 - God is omnipotent.
IF we assume we have free will because of God's love, then our future is unknown and not yet fixed. This by defintiion removes the ability of God to know the future, thus rendering him omnipotent.
IF we assume God is omnipotent, then we do not have free will, because God's knowledge of the future pre-supposes our actions and we assumption #1 is therefore violated.
Therefore free will and God's omnipotence are mutually exclusive.
Ok, so history class was awhile ago, but the last time I checked, this is how the Ammendments began... "Ammendment I: Congress shall make NO law...ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" What part of "no law" is ambiguous? What part of "no law" is confusing? What part of "no law" makes you think that you can go around making laws abridging this country's freedoms? Seriously, this is what Tenant is arguing: The freedoms of the United States of America are so valuable and need to be protected so much that we are going to preempt the infadels and strip your freedoms before they have a change to do it themselves. Because the US goverment limiting your freedoms is better than having some foreign body from the Axis of Evil doing it instead. Because the Constitution and the Founding Fathers were only kidding when they said no law. Because they didn't understand the threats of the new world. But they were smart enough to devise a completely new system of government with the longest lasting constitution in the history of the world. Because Freedom isn't free. and dammit, you're gonna like it.
Welcome to the new America.
As someone who lived through the '60s - with the Red Squads, COINTELPRO, and a plethora of other government responses to the Vietnam non-War, I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who knew people who were Freedom Riders in the '50s, with water cannon, lynchings, axe-handle beatings, and other governmental and government-winked-at "private" organizations such as the KKK (largely manned by goernment employees in their "off hours"), I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who knows the history of the Red Scare / "McCarthy Era" witch hunts (and indeed was toddling during that time) I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who, in his youth, knew some old fogies who were active in the original labor movement (Wobblies - never knew any Knights of Labor though there actually were a few still around), when corporate labor relations involved Pinkertons and machine guns, I can attest that this is the same old America.
As someone who knows of the history of US, I can attest that this sort of thing has been going on, decade by decade, since at least the Alien and Sedition acts in Jefferson's time (and even before, under other auspices).
Every generation is born ignorant. Its members have to discover for themselves that government officials abuse power and need to be kept in check, that institutions aren't enough, that eternal vigilance (and occasional difficult and expensive effort) is the price of freedom.
This is why the US Constitution consists mainly of carefully-defined limits on the governments' actions. The founders were VERY familiar with the tendency of governments run by real people to gravitate into oppression, constantly finding ways to increase their own power. They did their best to create institutions to limit that trend, and provide the citizens with ways to fight back. But they didn't expect printed words to work on their own.
It has actually worked out far better than their expectations. (Jefferson, for instance, thought civil wars would still be required, at intervals averaging less than twenty years.)
But it still isn't perfect. And while the long-term trendline has been in the right direction, there's a lot of noise in the short term. And keeping the trend going the right direction requires constant effort.
Of course part of the mechanism of control is to keep the controlled ignorant of their own history, so they don't see the puppet strings until they notice being tugged. Thus it's often a surprise when you run into it in some new circumstance. And it's tempting to assume, thanks to this deliberate under-education, that things were fine until the latest outrage was instituted, and now they're going to hell.
Welcome to the real world, where the Tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.
But HANG ON to that outrage! Yes things have been bad - and far worse than they are now. But they're SUPPOSED to keep getting BETTER. When somebody finds a new way to make them worse again, it's time to FIGHT IT!
That things ONCE were WORSE is no reason to let them become bad once again, and knowing they once were worse is no reason to slack off.
Let the knowlege that governments tend to get on everyone's back help you in your fight to get them off - off your back, and everyone elses.
You're fighting the good fight.
This is one piece of your generation's opportunity to be patriots and heros.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You aren't allowed to hold a drivers' license unless you can show that you're able to safely operate a vehicle, so you don't endanger the lives of other drivers.
Really, why should it be any different on the Internet? Look at all the clueless users whose boxes become DDoS drones unknowingly, and consequently cause millions of dollars in lost profits to companies like Amazon. It's just a matter of time before someone takes out something critical.
I'm for limiting anonymous use of the Internet. You can deal with privacy concerns by using encryption. Eliminating anonymity would eliminate spam. Spam houses rely on masking their origination. Using encryption will not help them do that, but it WILL allow a non-anonymous user to avoid incriminating himself -- especially with the help of the DMCA, which makes it illegal to crack encryption. Sure the government could still crack encryption, but they could not use that information in court.
: What Constitution?
"Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers 'with a new level of security and risk management already built in.'" -- the article linked to (which few seem to have read)
Excuse me De Führer, but whilst you're burning the books, let me give you a dildo to shove up your ass! How did we ever let these retards in power? hmmmmm????
> ... What exactly does he want?
If he knew what exactly he wanted he would never call for limiting access. This is the problem of amareurs in professional fields in general.
Can kiss my fat hairy white ass.
George Bush is lying idiot.
The knuckleheads got what they wanted.
I just pray the whacked out dry drunk doesn't start a nuclear war and kill us all.
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/03/1 544238
Yes. Look into the history of the Roman Games for examples.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Is this another one of George Tenet's "SLAM DUNK" ideas like the one that Iraq had WMD?
It's time this sorry-ass, nation misleading mothafncka just STOP with the bright ideas already. Hasn't this one man "think tank" done enough damage already?
(*sigh* I feel better now)
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
polished look 2, you really speak to me. To other people as well, presumably, but not just to other people. Also to me. Thank you.
Tenet claims that "Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously."
Mods, please note that I didn't have time to read through all 721+ submissions, so sorry if someone already worked out this backward logic, BUT..... shouldn't access to the web be limited to those who show they _can't_ take security seriously?
Or, is this a two-sided statement really meaning that those who are smart enough to bypass security, á la Kevin Mitnick, will be limited to what they can do and be monitored every time they have contact with 'technology?'
Kind of off-topic, but a search feature that allows searching within submissions related to that specific story would save me some time and help avoid being redundant.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
That was an awesome post, thanks.
Didn't APRA design the 'net to detect censorship as damage and route around it? Isn't that a Fundamental aspect of the 'net? How can they chose to turn that off now? They can't yet even differentiate free speech and a terrorist action. And neither one of them generally even makes a blip on their radar if it doesn't Directly impact (or threaten) their Financial Markets. So the message remains the same: remain non-comercial (i.e. Free) and secure your own systems and the systems of your friends.
My old bbs code, I knew it would come back in style, hot damn!!! Everybody will go back to dial up bbs'n
Sounds like he's still angry about "get echelon day".
The concept of security is so absent as to be unknown. Almost every person I used to talk to about security always said the same thing: "Why would anyone break into my computer? There's nothing important on it!"
Exactly right.
People used to think that the reason someone would hack into a computer is because they wanted access to what was on that computer - either to retrieve confidential information or to cause damage (e.g. deface a web site). The general public is understandably not too concerned about this, until the spyware popups get too thick and they finally get fed up with it. Even still, people simply don't comprehend the real issue - people are hacking into their PC so they can use that PC as part of a botnet, not because they're interested in the data on the PC itself.
If the public could be educated about botnets, a lot of problems would go away, because people would really understand why security is important. In the mean time, spyware that pops up porn ads and crashes frequently is actually helping.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Cars are licensed because they are horribly dangerous crackpot contraptions
I think the idea in this discussion is that computers on the net are "horribly dangerous crackpot contraptions" as you say, and should be "road worthy" and used in a "safe" manner. It's a very interesting discussion, because the basic idea is to have some rules for the common good. Not that I agree, but I am getting tired of some of the crap going on, like 1% good E-mail (even after spam filter), and having to scan my system for adware, spyware, and viruses... of course that will never go away, but it would be reduced significantly given some sort of legal restraint.
American Power rests on a top-down corporate model (greed), a massive military machine (hate), and a huge PR industry (lies). The web, as an open forum (unlike radio and TV) offers a chance to cut into the latter (lies). They're not strangling this communication channel without a fight. and Fuck FOX "news".
That obviously means that the network stack is removed from MS-Windows and from any stray AOL users.
I think the idea in this discussion is that computers on the net are "horribly dangerous crackpot contraptions" as you say
But computers on the Internet are not "horribly dangerous", unless they are directly in control of some device or system that can hurt people if it's misused.
That is, if you don't know how to drive and you get on the road in your car you're likely to hurt or kill someone. If your car has no brakes you're likely to hurt or kill someone. If you don't know how to use your computer, or your computer is unsafe, you may inconvenience people but you're not going to hurt or kill someone.
Computers that are like cars, in that they are inherently dangerous because of the way they're being used, those have some justification in being treated like cars. Most people's computers aren't like that, they're like someone walking along the sidewalk.
What George Tenet is saying is that because someone on the sidewalk might throw stones at cars, and some of those cars may be carrying money or weapons, we should restrict who should be allowed on the sidewalk.
What I'm saying is "don't carry your valuables in a Yugo with 'driver carries $1,000,000 cash' or 'get your nukes here' painted on the side, carry them in unmarked armored cars". Don't run critical applications over unsecured links.
The way I see it, the Internet is a place for people to express themselves. Granted, some people do , let say, immoral things on the Internet, or illegal activities. This problem should not be governed by restricting access to the Internet, but I think the problem could be solved if domain registrations were revoked and sites kicked off servers. The stuff that Tenet said that, "The Internet 'represents a potential Achilles' heel for our financial stability and physical security if the networks we are creating are not protected,'" that is just bullshit.
Anyone who runs is V.C. Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined V.C.
Door Gunner, Full Metal Jacket
Freality! Freality, you tell your computer friends that you need to take a break and come up here right now. Your father is already eating and dinner is getting cold.
"This is where I will make my stand. I'm going to die anyways. I will live free or die fighting."
Right. Let me know how that works out for you...
There have been centuries of theological debate as to what exactly the tree meant and honestly, I doubt I'll be adding a great deal to the subject. ^_^ Nonetheless, I'll speak because I'm egotistical enough to think I'll add something. To me, the tree essentially represented free will. It probably wasn't a real tree, but it represented the knowledge of good and evil. Once Adam and kin realized that there were such a thing as good and evil and that they could choose which action to take, they started being held responsible for their actions. As human beings, we are inherently imperfect and prone to some evil in our lives, so ultimately none of us are suitable for Heaven. Therefore, God has given us the opportunity to be forgiven of our sins if we are truly sorry and have shown proper repentence. As to why anyone would go to Hell, the only scenario that ever made sense to me, All-loving God and all, were people who, after receiving all the truth on the matter and fully understanding their decision, still rejected God and his offer of salvation. That's not to say that sinning carries no penalties. Good Catholic that I am, I believe in a purgatory where we'll have to wash our souls clean, but the culmination of free will IMO is for us to ultimately have a final choice based upon the total truth.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Tenet said "Terorists are a back door through which carpet baggers and power mongers can control and monopolize the internet..."
Oh wait! Sorry, that dislexia can be troublesome.
Did we forget tell George that the internet treats censorship like an error and roughts around it? No George, the internet is NOT like the Wild West. In the wild west, bad actors were shot. Now go back to the meeting house and leave this internet thing to the men.