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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Have a nice day!
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
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
"Bush is an idiot!"
Can't wait to see my Karma boosted!!
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.
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
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.
Thank you for your opinion, sir. We'll give it the attention it deserves.
Now where did I put that pesky trashcan?
Yeah, right.
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