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?"
Maybe that sort of bone-headed comment is why he's the "former" CIA head.
.nosig
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.
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
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
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
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.
Oh, and don't forget those that mention God, free speech or civil rights. Ban them all. MUAHAhahahaha.
We win together or suffer without.
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.
Yeah, like Taco reads this site anymore.
Yeah, because licensing worked wonders for keeping bad drivers off the highways...oh, wait...
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
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
Brilliant. Bravo, sir!!!
Here's a few more
Finally we'll fix the copyright laws and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the democracy and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the constitution and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the trade policy and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the ABM treaty and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the middle east and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Finally we'll fix the world and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there.
Bush is trying really hard.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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".
While there is some hope in other nations, 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 and most governments have a natural tendency to want to regulate things.
Look at all the ammo Bush and predecessors have given to repressive governments all around the world.
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.
One of the downside of taking one of those jobs, but true nonetheless.
sPh
Clearly it was the bit that said so long as America gets its nice clean trouble-free internet, it doesn't matter what's left for the rest of the world. In all seriousness though, I would welcome a more security oriented attitude towards the internet. Greater security doesn't neccessarily mean loss of anonymity. 'Limiting access to only those who take security seriously' could be an entirely benevolent suggestion. And pigs might fly.
Santa's suicide mission go!
Oh, don't get your undies in a twist over this - there's nothing untoward going on here.
<scary>The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.</scary>
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
The US government is not paranoid about terrorism (though many citizens are, especially in the Red States). Terrorism is just a smokescreen. A boogyman that lets the government do as it pleases. A monster in the closet to be whipped out everytime the populace decides to get uppity or question the actions or motivations of those in charge.
It's not about terrorism and it never was. It is about control. It's about taking the Internet out of the hands of the masses and handing it over to a select few: the government and large communications companies.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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.
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.
Better security for businesses and critical infrastructure? Fine, great! Turning the WHOLE internet into a high security grid? Not helpful, not healthy, but easy to propose and advantageous to entities who don't like free speech to be quite so free.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
1. The Bible doesn't say it's OK to sin anywhere. While it is true that acts don't save or condemn us, maintaing a sinful lifestyle is not beneficial (to those sinning or those around them). Read up where Paul says (paraphrased), "If I get grace to cover my sin, and it's good to get grace, shall I sin more so I get more grace? By no means!" to address an incorrect view about what it means to deal with sin.
2. "Pushing people away" does not condemn people to hell. 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) - he only provides a way for them to be saved through Christ. No "Christian" ever saved any other person either - "salvation" is the sole work of Christ. What pushing people away does do, though, is - as you said - make them less likely to be open to what Christ could do for them: "why would I want to hang out with a bunch of hypocrites" is the typical response to groups who push others away in such fashion.
3. I think it's better to say "You need to be kind and welcoming to people even when you acknowledge what is and is not a sin." Jesus did this: he ministered to prostitutes, people who slept around, corporate theives, etc. and generally he said: "I have taken care of you, but go and sin no more!". The point is that you cannot sacrifice knowledge of right and wrong for the sake of "being nice". Being nice and welcoming has no meaning without the ideas of right and wrong (think about it).
Your basic statement is correct through: the general public needs to understand that how the media portrays Christians, and even how some that claim to be Christian portray Christians, is generally not entirely true. Read the Bible for yourself, study it, and really look at what it says.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Look at all the ammo Bush and predecessors have given to repressive governments all around the world.
You mean like authorizing torture and thinking of ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention with imaginative and legally unstable word games?
Or getting the UN to declare that the citizens of a country that's occupied by another country can't resist violently?
Or what about providing a template for holding "elections" that are quickly and easily handed over to the "right" person regardless of who the citizens actually voted for?
Oh, Wait! I know, its his outline for stripping away civil liberties and rights, allowing any republic to quickly become a fascist police state with just a couple of quick bills.want Stalin would have cried with joy over the Patriot Act.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
What it really means is that the CIA sees your porn collection as a threat to the American way of life ...
It won't stop at your porn collection if you are one of those troublemakers who has a tendancy to speak his mind.
#1) Ever critcise the president? No problem, it's a free country (but you are now known to be a possible dissident/anti-government radical).
2) Do you support or promote privacy and/or anonymity rights? Not an issue (but you are now suspected of
possible conspiracy due to your desire to hide your actions and communications).
3) Use email to ask your mom to pick up some stuff from the store? By itself, this is no issue (but the fact that you are an anti-establishment radical who wishes to hide your actions from the government makes the email asking mom to pick up some rubbing alcohol and chlorine bleach indicates otherwise).
The actual innocence of you actions has no influence on whether you will be investigated, suspected, or harrased by the intelligence community. It is all up to thier interpretation. If you are lucky, you will never be on thier radar. If you are not, your life will change, and not for the better. You may never know that (or if) you are being monitored and investigated and it is unlikely that you could prove that you were (even if you do know) unless actual charges are brought.
Welcome to the new America. Of course, you have no real reason to complain about this. These measures are necessary to make us safer and to "protect our Freedom(tm)". You should be happy that such efforts are being made. You can rest assured that no govenment official, employee, or contractor would ever abuse these regulations and capabilities for personal gain.
Just be happy that you have nothing to hide.
And be sure to keep it that way.
Always.
Read, L
> what he said was vague
and
> when innuendo equates it with terrorism and national security?
interesting juxtapostion, there.
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!
Just be happy that you have nothing to hide.
Exactly. I love the show Cops, becaus I like seeing people who dick over other people get caught and punished. But a phrase that always bugs the shit out of me is, "If you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to fear."
Tell that to the families of people that have been executed, and posthumously proven innocent.
I was thinking Terrorism is the new McCarthyism in the way that "Green is the new Blue" sort of thing. It's "fashionable" to be bigoted or racist, as long as it's against the group that is currently on the fringes of society. WWI it was the Germans (or Huns if you'd like). In WWII it was the Japanese (or brown apes), in the 50s/60s and for quite a while before then as well, it was the blacks (or a word I refuse to type that begins with an N). Now it's the Muslims (or towel heads) and the gays (selfish heathenists according to the man the Republicans chose to run for Senate in Illinois - Alan Keyes). Thankfully, I believe my generation (currently 20-somethings) and the generations that will follow me will be increasingly tolerant to those whose lifestyles are different from their own. It's funny to watch people try to explain their bogotry. I especially love when religion comes into the picture and they say that they're not bigoted, it's just the way God wants it. They seem totally unaware that white Christians used similar arguments to say that blacks were less worthy of equality in the mid-20th C. and that women should stay at home and mind their husbands and not worry about that whole suffrage thing. They also supported slavery in the 19th C. All things that most mainstream Christians would rail against if you tried to do it today. Religions aren't static. Most people, in my opinion, don't live their lives based on what they think their deity wants. They live their lives the way that they want and then wrap cherry-picked parts together and say that it's what their deity wants and that they're just "following orders" in essence. They are totally oblivious to the historical reality that religious "values" change to meet society, not the other way around. Actually I imagine that there is some realization about this, but they have to maintain the perception that they follow the religion and not vice versa to maintain the illusion of superiority.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
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.
"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.
Thank you for your opinion, sir. We'll give it the attention it deserves.
Now where did I put that pesky trashcan?
Yeah, right.
This argument works both ways. If we can't criticize your God, please tell us how you are in a position to praise him? Rational, caring people see a lot of problems with the alleged goodnes of your deity. If you lived in the same neighborhood with someone who acted like your God you'd probably think he was a huge asshole. Think about it.
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?
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?
There is little point in arguing with Him. All we really can do is bow down and submit to Him.
And if God tells you to strap on a belt of explosives and slaughter the infidels, well, that's His will and you'd better obey, right?
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
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?
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.
The Lord has never told anyone to do such a thing.
That has not stopped adherents from your own favorite religion from torturing and slaughtering people throughout history, or even "merely" continuing to engaging in persecution and oppression because well, that's His will and you'd better obey.
The point isn't any specific "message" from god, but the general problem with obediently obeying ANY "instructions from god" which are in fact nothing more than a messages related to you by other people. And no, citing some interpretation of some translation of some translation of some translation of some random book written by some random people a few thousand years ago (aka scripture) does not make it The Word Of God. And which ever book you happen to choose as your Holy Scripture, while it may certainly contain some bits of great human wisdom, is still nothing but a message written and translated and interpreted by people.
Taking mesasages that all originate from people and obediently obeying it as the Word Of God has (at the worst of times) been the single greatest source of atrocities and cruelty and suffering and wars and misery and oppression and injustice in all of human history.
Sure you'll dismiss such things as people "going astray" and not actually following the Word of your Scripture, but they all believed they were following The Word Of God just as much as you do, and had just as good a claim to it. And while we don't see many Christian suicide bombers running around (except maybe at abortion clinics), even modern US Christianty is hardly free from less flagrant persecution and oppression and injustice.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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
i am 30something and share your opinions. however, i have to say this -- when 20somethings with few material possessions and no kids become 30somethings with stuff, and kids, they change. not all of them, because i didn't, but most of them. they vote for candidates based purely on their stance on gay marriage, or the possibility that their guns might be taken from them. i hate it, but getting fat and selfish and overly fearful seems to be an almost unavoidable part of aging. and once the transformation is complete, the victim can no longer be reasoned with, or shown actual facts. all that matters is, in descending order (1) kids (2) being "safe" (3) having stuff. and i'm not even sure of the order on that one.
maybe one day i'll be smart enough to come up with a cool sig, too.
No, that phrase is found, quite appropriately, in the Declaration of Independence:Read the whole thing some time.