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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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
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"!
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.
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.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
He's not gonna get it, thank goodness. I mean ...
... what's that knocking on my door?]
Tenet's statements advocate a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to security. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from crackers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in protocols
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(?) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down! [Erm
Have a nice day!
I thought that US is a free nation, where all sorts of freedeoms flourish.
Adorable. Absoultely adorable. That is just about the sweetest thing I've heard since my daughter read me her christmas wish list to Santa.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
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.
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."
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.
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*!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I suppose you could ask him.
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!
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 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.
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?
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.
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.