Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former CIA Head Calls for Limiting Access to the Internet

Posted by michael on from the feeling-safer-already dept.

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?"

10 of 935 comments (clear)

  1. It obviously means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    An end to anonymity, and that is something I fully support! No one on the internet should be anonymous! It's just wrong.

    1. Re:It obviously means by DaHat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey Taco... any chance you'd be so kind as to tell us the IP of the above AC poster?

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:It obviously means by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heartily disagree with you. I think that the internet should be absolutely anonymous. I, Ted Phillips, believe that no one should EVER be identified on the internet.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    3. Re:It obviously means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've been 0wn3d

      Let's see what we can find. Pr0n, pr0n, pr0n, illegal mp3's, pr0n, pr0n, and ... hey, you sick bastard, what's this - MS Office? Disgusting!

    4. Re:It obviously means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      127.0.0.1

      You'll never find me...

    5. Re:It obviously means by kentmartin · · Score: 4, Funny

      What it really means is that the CIA sees your porn collection as a threat to the American way of life

      There is an interesting point raised here about the Americentrocity (Amerocentrocity?) of the internet.

      The US appears to be getting more and more draconian with it's protection (or lack thereof) of civil liberties, civil privacy in particular. I am looking now at doing some web connected stuff with very sensitive information (medical) and, although I haven't researched it yet, I have a strong feeling that US hosting will not be an option due to laws that allow the govt to confiscate/view that data. (Please do correct me if you think I am in error here - in fact, there is an "Ask Slashdot" question in there somewhere)

      It should be noted that I do host a few things, but nothing containing anything more sensitive than CC details. Up until this project, the US has always been the place I have hosted (the lowest price for the best comms).

      Further, consider the event that US internet functionality is severely curtailed (and I think the logistical and technical problems in doing that make that eventuality extremely unlikely). How functional and viable would the internet be with only partial US involvement? Is the US so important to the net at large, that the administration there would be able to effectively force all other nations to fall into line with their policy (another "Ask Slashdot")?

      I am not American, nor have I ever lived there, but, I strongly suspect the answer to my second question could be "yes".

  2. Sounds good to me. by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
    I know I'll probably be in the minority here, but I say: That God. For too long the internet has been a haven for bad people engaging in bad behavior.

    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.
    1. Re:Sounds good to me. by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Funny

      People are inherently condemned to hell already because all people sin. That's the beauty of it: God doesn't send anyone to hell (because we're already heading that way)

      This is a surprise. I thought that God was supposed to be in charge. Now you seem to be saying that God has no control over the rules of an inflexible system that automatically sends us to hell for "sins" (which are apparently unavoidable, since "all people sin"). The best he can do to fight the system is to save a few of us.

      Poor God. Just another victim of an inflexible Universe that is beyond his control.

  3. Man... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's going to suck not having any Internet access at the CIA...

  4. Your indecent use of the swear words ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Funny
    "homos-xuals","d-rwinists", "s-x-ed", "ab-rtionists" and "h-ck" has designated you as someone incapable of providing the wholesome interface that the NewInternet(tm) needs. Step away from the computer and wait for the relocation experts from Guantanamo to arrive.

    Have a nice day!