Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer
aicrules writes "Despite the constant prattle of privacy groups and individual privacy advocated, according to a poll reported on by CNN most Americans want the government to be heavily involved in securing the Internet. They want to eat their cake too, though, as those polled also don't trust the governmental bodies charged with such security. They also found that more people trust Microsoft with security. From the article, 'I don't think the public knows what it wants Congress to do, but it wants Congress to do something,...They don't have a lot of confidence that Congress will do the right thing.'"
From TFS:
Of course that's what the poll said...most Americans who don't want the government involved didn't participate in the survey, for fear that the government would flag them as 'potential terrorists'.
After all, if you don't want our fine government securing our internet, you must be a terrorist!
Why do you hate our freedom???
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If "most" American's really want the "government" hover over the internet and potentially tramp on rights, there is fairly simple way -- amend the Constitution. It's not EASY, but it is a simple solution.
My personal favorite from TFA:How can the "public" know what it wants to do when most people don't even know how congress WORKS? Most don't even know the name of their own representatives. Besides, my understanding of TFA was that it WASN'T a poll of MOST Americans, but of "LIKELY VOTERS". Always need to read the 'fine print'.
From the post:
There is nothing in the actual article to even suggest/support this thesis... (ignoring for the moment the thesis is not well-formed... e.g., "more people than what?, than before?")
The closest thing I can find from the article says:
I don't think that is the same as "more people trust Microsoft...".
[1]
But Kurtz said Congress and the Bush administration should do a better job enforcing existing Internet laws against hackers, thieves and vandals and offer incentives for companies to improve security.
[2]Most Americans believe the government should do more to make the Internet safe, but they don't trust the federal institutions that are largely responsible for creating and enforcing laws online, according to a new industry survey.
- Bill Gates should be head of Homeland Security.
- 2 out of 3 Americans surveyed believe in the tooth fairy.
- "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli (attributed by Mark Twain)
If God truly does look out for fools, he's having to put in some serious overtime for the United States.Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
They can start by declaring Nuclear war on spammers. Especially those who are known to lie within the US jurisdiction, or promoting products sold by US based companies.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Right Thing (tm) from the same people who've brought the internet such gems as the DMCA, the PATRIOT act, and software patents.
Ah yes, journalisitc integrity takes another nose dive. The correct headline should be "Most Americans Want the Government to Do Their Job".
If you read the article, you'll find that the survey was about the FTC and FBI executing the same sort of fraud prosecution that they do with brick and mortar businesses. This is a good thing (obviously) because someone must uphold the laws under which companies do business. Failing to enforce laws just because a company "is on the internet" is silly, stupid, and would lead to economic ruin for all involved.
The survey, to be released Wednesday, said 71 percent of people believe Congress needs to pass new laws to keep the Internet safe. But Kurtz said Congress and the Bush administration should do a better job enforcing existing Internet laws against hackers, thieves and vandals and offer incentives for companies to improve security.
The problem with surveys like this is that 95% of people never even read a single law. They are completely unaware of what laws exist to protect them and how those laws may be enforced. Coupled with poor enforcement (up until recently, enforcements agencies didn't understand the internet environment) and you've got a wide open door for bad laws like the DMCA. Which, BTW, isn't that bad of a law itself, but it really didn't bring anything new to the table and created more loopholes for civil and criminal suits.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Do we really want a government that can't secure it's own systems to be responsible for the whole system?
I'll rely on my own security thanks.
we want the government to do everything. heatlh care. oh, it's a right. retirement. gimme gimme gimme. education. federal takeover. we want prescription drugs, everything paid fo rby the governemnt. we want to use lawsuits to get rich quick, sue anyone for anything. we live in a welfare mentality. fuck if people care about freedom anymore. and freedom means freedom to fail. you want to make it rich, fine. but people want their desert without getting fat. it's sick.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
As usual, people want the government to "do something". Congress will take some reactionary step, and in the process, our freedoms will erode, either directly through laws or indirectly through the requirements of law enforcement (i.e., monitoring). Unfortunately, this mentality seems to be the defining feature of American politics nowadays.
It isn't news, and why democracy can suck so badly sometimes.
Deleted
Unfortunately, they don't know or won't care for what they have to do to attain it.
I don't want anyone to make the internet safer except myself. I installed the Firewall. I installed the AV. I installed all the other safety stuff. Not the government, and I don't want them to bud in.
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
The "dangers of the nasty internet" are evident, bothersome and overall annoying. I do not want the government to step in and take action because 9 times out of 10 that is bad news. People want the government to do something about it because the government is easy to blame. Just like people who sue McDonalds for making them fat. Ronald McDonald did not run up to you put a gun to your head and say eat these 3 grease patties. Likewise it was not the government that provided you with an unsafe internet. It was you, your peers, your fellow citizens. The perverts and the hustlers, the digital pimps and schemers; it was you. I will rue the day that the government steps in and begins doing something to make the internet safer. Because it will be then that the I realize the Bill of Rights do not mean a damn thing.
Unmatched Style |
Of course most Americans want the government to do everything for them. It's a CNN poll for Christ sake.
People are stupid, and in general should stfu.
What I mean, is that if Congress is moved into action, the internet will not become safer, but rather the only thing that will change is that there will be more government enforcement of MPAA/RIAA copyrights, more wiretapping, and more TAXES. What I mean is, nothing will improve (for the people), it will only be worse.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
There is nothing that the governemt can do except for foceing all ISP to Virus Check the emails that they recieve, and keep their virus scanner up to date. But that is about it. They can't block porn because first there is no 100% or even 75% good filter on that and could block non-porn as well. They can't block SPAM because it could block non-spam as well. If the closed the door to forgen countries over the internet then we will not be able to compete globally. OK I have an Idea this should work pritty well. To make the Internet safer make Windows Illegal and force everyone to use OpenBSD!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Most Americans don't have a clue about the Internet. If they did they would relise the Internet is as secure and safe as you make it. If you open random attachments and goto www.hotmenfuckingducks.com then you deserve all you get.
I like muppets.
The peasants are so stupid that they care about the crops and not naked statues in cities. The prolitarians care about basic safety as opposed to esoteric ideas.
Hasn't this been happening over and over again? Common man wants freedom. Geeks made da cool internets and common people moved it and then internet was screwed, with all kinds of stupid laws and problems.
Geeks rejoiced at first when common people were moving in because of the money - geeks are farmers of the WWW and behaved in the same way an apple farmer would when lots of tourits stop by his farm to buy apples. The common folk law follows common people and here we are - they want internet to be "safer".
I do sound elite, but dont you think that this problem was out there all the time? US constitution is also very elite, for that matter. Not everyone gets equal treatment and if you disagree, you must be blind to what goes on in the real world.
When you look at some of the members[1] of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, you see names like McAfee and Symantec. Indeed, it is these companies best financial interests for security to be mandated. Of course they want legislation that demands that each and every computer on the Internet runs their antivirus or firewall software. And of course their surveys will suggest that that's what people want.
l ist/
References:
[1] https://www.csialliance.org/membership/membership
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
...American people don't know what the fsck they want! Story at 11...
Seriously though, there's a little truism that goes something like "In democracy, people get exactly the government they deserve", and I'd say it's quite true. We don't know *what* we want, and as such, we end up with crap.
Once people figure out that they have to be engaged with the issues to vote intelligently, then we'll see some change. Maybe a few more centuries of societal progress and we'll get there...
Security has many meanings in today's post 9-11 world. Do they mean big brother style filtering for hackers? Software wise in patching the security holes? Security for what?
The statistics are clear.
If they want a safe internet, they musk get rid of Windows and go to Unix (OS X, BSD or Linux.)
The facts are clear. Windows sucks and that can be expected to continue until Microsoft changes EVERYTHING about their development philosophy, which will require changing all the dev tools.
Until that happens, Microsoft will be hackable.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
-Mayor Joe Quimby
"Though, as those polled also don't trust the governmental bodies charged with such security. They also found that more people trust Microsoft with security."
But..and then...Yet if...Really?..the g'ment...M$...Security?..
(*Head Explodes*)
1. Problem -Hackers use holes in operating systems to steal data or hijack computers .
Answer - Before anyone can log on they must use a highly secure OS with firewall and find a way to stop scanning and stop Chinese and Russian fuckers from connecting into the U.S. network.
2.Phony internet auction sites are sucking up alot of FBI and local police resources.
Answer. Make EBAY underwrite(insure and background check) all transactions. There present system of warning people sucks. They are worth billions on paper and do SHIT to stop the con artists except alot of mouth service and tell you to use Paypal. Same goes to Yahoo auctions. IF this can't be done then the government should WARN people not to buy shit from auctions since half the folks are cons or sell defective shit.
Sure the internet is fully of sleazy stuff we don't want our kids to see and malware that can render our computers useless, but most of these problems wouldn't exist if people knew what they were doing.
When you are old enough to drive, you can't just get in a car a go (I guess you can, but not legally). You have to take a driver's test, you need insurance, you might have a driver probation period, etc. Why? Becuase you are no taking responsibility for not only something that can harm you, but others as well. SUre there a gov/state regulations with regards to driving, but basically you can drive to/from where you please.
Well being that a person's PC can now be used to attack others and spread virsus, that person has the responsibility to learn how to keep there PC up to date with security patches and to stay away from nude B. Spears photos. I've purchased many Dells and none of them come with a warning or label that even attempts to mention that "by taking this PC into your home, you are taking on a great responsibility, etc."
Maybe something like that is needed because we [Americans] want the government to do everything for us, oh, but don't raise our taxes....just print more money
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
have been whipped into a sense of insecurity by their government, A sense of entitlement by their society and are so far removed from the realities of the 'world' (not their world, the world as in the whole earth), that they cannot even begin to comprehend it.
If possible, they would like someone to maintain the status quo, possibly save them from any harm and even eventual death and would probably pay a lot for that service....
Hey, wait a minute, maybe that's the missing step...
1. Whip people into a frenzy.
2. Offer them complete, total and absolute insurance from all calamities of the world.
3. Profit!!!
more services
more control over folks that seem threatening
more privacy for themselves.
the thing is: most Americans are pragmatic; they settle for a good beer and cheap cable tv
There's something to this. Why the hell should I be innundated with pen1s elargement email or v1agra email? It's my right to not have that shit come to my mailbox too.
I got nailed on www.ewanted.com by someone. Said they would deliver me a lens for my camera for a decent price.
I sent the money. Here's what happened
Yeah, I was dumb. I got my money back from paypal.
I filed a complaint with the consumer protection agency. The people never responded so they just closed the case. I was very disappointed that they didn't place fraud charges. But I still got my money back, and I'm sure paypal nailed them. Paypal rocks. I wouldn't have sent money if it wasn't for paypal.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'd support government regulation/surveillance if there was another independent group set up to audit/check up on them. I think the main privacy issue is that the information the agency gathers would be use maliciously or unlawfully. Having an independent auditor should remedy that.
Most US Citizens voted for Bush
It really depends on what you define as "safer." Asking that better safeguards be implemented. Right now you have ISP's which are havens to botnets, spammers, and other various problems. Maybe we can't deal as much with the IP's in Asia/Europe/etc but there are plenty here that are regularly spamming, portscanning, and generally running rampant as a bot/script-kiddies.
Here we go again. Luckily, the US doesn't own the 'net. - but perhaps that wont stop them :0
I hope they do make it safer -- I've had numerous internet-related injuries from tripping on cat5, once I dropped a router on my foot, CRT eyestrain, carpal tunnel syndrome... The list goes on!
Help us Alberto Gonzales, you're our only hope!
and now back to the fallout shelter...
Arent these the same guys who laughed at http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/06/07/1619215.shtml ">China couple of days ago :)
Keep the gov't the hell away from regulating the internet. If they're getting bored in Washington, here's a few ideas to work on:
Secure our border with Mexico.
Secure our ports.
Secure our private pensions...i.e. - keep the greedy bastards running our corporations from looting our pension funds.
Raise the minimum wage.
Funding for alternate energy sources.
etc...
I don't know about you guys, but the only conclusion I got out of this poll is that average American internet users are stupid and don't know what they want. No real surprises here, if you don't know anything about the internet than you shouldn't have any opinion on how to change it. This was a pretty idiotic poll IMHO. Let's poll mall-goers next to see which method of surgical cutting they prefer.
I guess you could note that people are getting edgy about the security problems on the 'net. But what the hell is government going to do about that? If you have a problem with worms, blame Microsoft's complete inability to understand what a buffer overflow is. For spam, ask your ISP why they haven't put in a spam filter yet. These are generally resolveable problems that the government can't do diddily squat to fix.
Well said, TripMaster. I'd mod this up as "insightful" if I had any mod points.
...since there is no way to find out if you're on the list until you TRY to board a plane. Idiots.
I know people on the "No Fly List" merely because they speak out on the net against government intrusion. Heck, I could easily be on the list myself, but since I haven't tried flying since the list was invented I don't know.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Most Americans want the government making the Internet safer, eh? That's good for them, but it's too god damned bad that America doesn't own the Internet.
How about most Americans get off of their lazy asses and install bloody norton?
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
This sort of thing scares the shit out of me. Besides being an American and working on a faily predominant open source project, I am also a Systems Engineer at a telecommunications company, working on the ISP side of the house. I've seen what government regulation can do on the telco side of the house, and it is truly scary to think that people would actually want the government getting involved in their Internet connection. Without even going into the political aspects of this, how the hell would they possibly be able to do anything on a global, distributed network such as the Internet? Are we going to have the "Great FireWall of America" right along with the Chinese? Better yet, who's going to protect us from ourselves?
While I can understand people believing that Microsoft is the answer to their prayers, I respond with this. Microsoft should be! They should make sure that their systems have reasonable defaults. They should do more to secure their OS. This isn't just something Microsoft is liable for, everyone producing software should be making their software as safe as possible, out of the box. One thing we definitely do not need is a bunch of fat cat politicians who don't understand nor care about the problem making more laws controlling how things are done on a network that isn't bound by political boundaries, who are only working on the behalf of their "constituents" and "special interests" and not us, the American people.
Also, who are we to tell other countries what to do? And if we don't tell other countries what to do, then how the hell can the government do anything that would actually be beneficial?
Perhaps more work needs to be done at the ISP level to ensure customer safety. Perhaps more work needs to be done by the software vendors to ensure customer safety. However, I know for sure that the government really needs to stay the hell out of it. They've proven time and time again that technology is not something that they understand. Couple that with the fact that technology changes much mroe rapidly than a slow-moving government is capable of handling, and I think we all can see where this is going.
Then again, Joe Sixpack thinks it is a good idea, and they seem to be the guys actually out there running this country, so maybe it is time I start looking at other countries to reside in, rather than allow my personal liberties to be eroded by Joe AOLuser can't figure out to turn on the fscking firewall.
Most people too stupid to live.
Well you see...you have 'gods' and 'clods'...
Blar.
Noam Chomsky once said the first amendment says you have to allow for free speech for everyone, not just "free speech for ideas you like."
If "securing" the Internet means making it less easy for crackers to break into systems, then I'm all for it, but doubt the government will be much help. For that, we should probably be looking at the work done in security research in Universities across the land.
If securing the Internet means preventing little Johnny from learning about crime ae and murder and sex, well then there is a very simple solution: prevent your child from accessing the Internet.
Little Johnny can just as easily find those things by wandering around town, entering restaurants, stores, parks and local hangouts. But that doesn't mean we should ban speech in public places. It just means if you want to protect your children from ideas you don't like, then protect them, god damnit. Understand that browsing the web is just like walking around town without parental supervision. Don't blame the publishers: blame yourself!
I just met a few parents who let their kid browse the web for hours on end. Eventually, they found out this 13 year old girl was sending naked photos of herself to random 40 year olds online with her webcam. So what did they do? Tried to sue the website that allowed her to do that (buddypic.com), of course! Did she ever think that she might be at fault, for allowing her daughter to browse around the web without any inkling of what is Right and what is Wrong in her innocent mind?
America: land of irresponsible but accusatory parents, who'll shred our constitution if it means they can watch their shitty network TV ("CSI is on!") while their children entertain themselves any way they can, so long as it is state-controlled and state-monitored.
This doesn't surprise me, as at one time most Americans used AOL as their ISP. (I don't know if this is still true.)
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Me: (Swooning to the ground) THUD!
Me: Getting up, looking at that sentence again...THUD!
Me: Lying on the ground, having that sentence reverberate through my mind...Head goes THUD!
... good thing the USA is still a Constitutional Republic, eh?
But most Americans have no idea how the Internet works or why it is so vital. They see the Internet as an entertainment device. Like the TV, just another thing. They don't see it as the most amazing medium for free speech humanity has ever seen. Just like in the real world if we want to keep our rights and privacy we will have to put up with some crime. The internet is no different.
They don't realize that making the internet "safe" will just cripple and ruin it.
No wonder the masses won't use encryption. No wonder why we let the REAL ID act pass.
Actually, that doesn't require "most" Americans. It requires "a majority of the population in 38 states". The relation between the two is left as an exercise for students of mathematics and politics.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Please Cue:
1) The comments about welfare-sucking Liberals that want someone else to do everything for them
2) The comments about the stupidity of Americans
3) The comments about irrelevant/flamebait articles
4) The "Just Use Linux/A MAC[sic]" mantra that is blind chestbeating/dickwaving moreso than some carefully considered solution.
And don't forget to mod this comment with one each of everything on the list!
do() || do_not();
How dare you read the article and give us the facts rather than make baseless accusations! I demand to see your Slashdot credentials, sir!
Remove all Windows machines from the internet.
No more Zombie nets used to DDOS and act as spam relays.
My company is currently going through our C-TPAT validation (our audit is Monday actually) and while there are some nuggest of good ideas and practices I've seen in the C-TPAT documentation, there are reams and reams of requirements that you know were stuck in there by some asshat beauracrat with a personal agenda.
So now instead of just doing the smart and sane things we already do we have to pile on a heap of new requirements that are costing us a lot of time and money to implement.
C-TPAT is supposed to make "things" safer, but I've not managed to determine exactly what "things" will be made safer, or how it will happen because now I officially can't smoke in my data center (yes, that's an official requirement).
<sarcasm>
Yea goverment involvement
</sarcasm>
but certainly the "Constitutional" part is now suspect.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Wait, I thought microsoft was the goverment???
Somewhat off-topic but I would like to know a little on the subject of encryption. Is there any way one can encrypt data and send it over the Internet without the ISP ever seeing it in its plain form?
I heard FreeBSD has an encrypted file system but I am more interested in the exchange of data. Can I tunnel all my data through SSH (or PuTTY on Windows)? Are there more practical solutions? I'd also like to know, if I encrypt the data I send can the recipient read it without additional software?
Finally, could I be sued by my ISP for accidentally ending up on a site not compliant to the article 2257 about underage models?
We're mostly a bunch of sheep.
Please protect me from myself. If I knew as little about operating my car as I know about operating my computer, I wouldn't be able to get out of my own driveway, yet I would be a mortal danger to everyone in my city. I would have no concept of speed limits, driving on the proper side of the road, pedestrain crossings or the rights of others. Oftentimes I would simpy let my car roam free, with no driver at all.
If I took care of my car the way I take care of my computer, I'd be driving a 1956 Chevy Bel-Air with four flat tires. The oil wouldn't have been changed since 1967. Great gouts of smoke would belch from the exhaust, choking everybody in my vicinity. My 12-year-old nephew would come over occasionally to chase away the vermin that multiplied in the back seat. The manufacturer of my car would think a cross between a Pinto and a Corvair was the epitome of safety.
In short, I am a danger and a nuisance to myself, and everyone around me. Please rectify this sorry situation by legislating that all competent drivers be treated as though they were me.
Thanks,
My Dad
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
...how do we know they didn't deliberately skew the results?
We hear all the time, 'polls show this' and 'the majority of Americans say that', and we don't know that's how the poll *really* came out, or even if there *was* a poll.
Just something to think about.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Say the states levied all of the taxation and alloted some of the cash to run the federal administration.
Deleted
Try to make be, bitch!
they probably think that sadam had nukes, and that the climate is not changing, and that USA *is* the world ...
Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a trade group that has lobbied the Bush administration to pay greater attention to Internet security
Please dont.
Only 70% of americans know how many stars are on the flag
60% of people cannot name the three branches of American government, 37% could not even name one branch, and 89% don't realize the Patriot Act allows secret search & seizures by the government
30% of americans do not know that plants produce most of the Oxygen on earth; only 11% can describe radiation and only 13% know what a molecule is
Only 38% of *investors* know what a "no-load" fund is (Which I suppose goes to show that just because Americans get involved with something doesn't mean they bother to actually know anything about it)
Only 50% of Americans know how long it takes the Earth to circle the sun
Frankly, we need to stop encouraging people to go vote. If you don't know why it is important to vote, then stay the hell home, because you probably don't know enough to intelligently cast a vote anyhow. "Get out the vote" campaigns are at best drives to sign up supports and at worst just base demagoguery.
Look how long it took the goverment to concern themselves with the automobile industry.
The Big Three should be indighted for manslaughter ~Tucker
I want to be retired when I grow up.
I don't believe most people would like the result. Whenever I think of the Internet, I think of those old black and white movies where model T cars were running into each other and it was total utter chaos. For the most part, the internet is still like that.
But we've established a code of conduct for automobiles and the roadways. Laws and codes of conduct are enforced, people need tests and have to prove they're competent enough to drive and use vehicles on the road.
Is this really what people want from the Internet? There seems to be a common misconception (I work for an ISP), that somehow the problems on the internet are someone else's, and they need to fix them. If the federal government enforces a code of conduct (hey you windows people, you have to run a firewall, keep patched, updated virus definitions, don't open odd attachments), and they revoke your privlege to use the Internet, would people like or agree to that?
Much of bad security banks off of people's bad habits. And I don't just mean end users on workstations. A small business who runs an insecure mail server, would they want the government to come in and enforce the code of conduct to make sure their (mail|web|anything else) server is secure?
Even if the government could enforce these ideas 100% (which they can't) what about other countries?
The average person still isn't entirely savvy about the internet and security. But the bar is raising. Slowly, but raising.
FLR
There's also the wee problem of people who were convicted by mistake. This has been shown to have happened (since DNA testing started) and most (all?) states still don't have remedies for wrongly convicted felons. Many have been simply dumped with not so much as an apology
Both, probably.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
.. while the rest of the World want Most Americans to make their Government safer. America Must Not Dictate Further Communications Policies; its own have resulted in near-fatal failures of its own society.
Freedom for the world is one thing, consuming the fruits of freedom, however, is another thing entirely..
"Free People" either practice Free Speech, and use their freedom to educate each other to form 'safety nets in society', or they just let the TV take over their thought patterns entirely, and forget that mass communication is not just for the consumer but also for the producers' benefit.. forget this, and you lose your freedom.
Leaving the Internet open, free, unfettered, and 'self-organizing' means it will always be a -reflection- of the society prevailing its administration. Technically and otherwise.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
My wife was telecommuting to work the other day, and a drunk surfer got on the information superhighway doing 95kB/s THE WRONG WAY! My wife got into a head-on, and now I'll have to raise our children alone. :(
Its time the government stepped in and made the internet safer, so that other people don't suffer my wife's fate.
Could the propaganda machine known as CNN be any less obvious? This is disgusting. The majority of Americans want the Internet policed just as much as they want their beautiful wives groped in an airport security screening.
Of course Americans want the government to make things "safer". "Safer" is a good thing. Now ask if they would like the government to read their e-mail, access their browser history, listen in on their VOIP calls, and know their passwords. You'll get a very different response. That's why government misbehavior is given names like "The Patriot Act", and "The Children's Internet Protection Act". Like the word "Safer", If you oppose those things you sound like you're unpatriotic, or a danger to children. It's pretty stupid. They know that they can get away with just about anything as long as it has a pretty bow around it (or mentions 'terrists').
/. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
I want to make sure all the internets are safe.
Most americans are stupid.
"Most americans", it doesnt happen to mention cant check their email without someone holding their goddamn hand through the whole experience.
The government is the last thing that needs to be involved with making the internet safer, USERS need to be EDUCATED on how to PROPERLY keep themselves SAFE by using ANTIVIRUS, FIREWALLS, GOOD PASSWORD TECHNIQUES and *gasp* COMMON SENSE
After reading this, I've gathered that we Americans believe the following: * America wants its Internet secure to protect the homeland from terrorists and evil trolls in turbans * America doesn't want too MUCH security -- after all, if we can't get hot Asian chicks off the Internet, it means we'll have to get off our fat asses and make the trip to the porno store (not fun) * America doesn't like Congress -- no hot Asian chicks * Microsoft will protect the homeland AND hot Asian chicks, ergo, Bill Gates is God The solution: Congressional wet T-shirt contests, more diversity, death to crapware, and the freedom to pleasure ourselves unabashed by Osama and cohorts.
are they nUTs? what freaks want the web safer...for whom? let freedom ring the cheese stands alone
Personally, from the perspective of someone who will be a parent before too long, I am seriously concerned. I'm very computer savvy but I wonder how I'm going to protect my kids from a lot of stuff on the internet (that is, when they're old enough to use a computer). For example, I've got nothing against pornography for adults, but pornography can cause children a great deal of confusion regarding relationships. I'm very concerned about keeping my children from getting access to hard core pornography before a certain age. And then of course there's the problem with pedophiles on the internet.
At the very least, I know I'll be able to monitor their internet usage, at least while they're at home, but it's virtually impossible to block everything you don't want them to access.
I would really like to see something done, but I don't trust the government to do it. I'd prefer some sort of improvement in the technology, but I don't even have the foggiest idea of how it can be accomplished. And I don't just mean technically speaking, I mean from an abstract idea of what kind of content, how to identify it (in an application indepdent way), and how to block it. I mean, it's just a mind bogglingly difficult issue to get around.
I can understand parents wanting the gov't to do something but not trusting the gov't at the same time. And maybe what I want isn't even possible. In which case, I'll have to stick to simply monitoring all the traffic over the router and trust that my kids don't become better hackers than me, and find a way around my monitoring.
"Don't fucking put your thoughts on how you would hand out mod points in your posts. If you have them, use them as you want. If you don't, then shut the fuck up about it."
"Honestly, could someone with mod points please mod the parent/... down"
Interesting...
I hope this country doesn't do to the internet what has been done to radio and television (only large companies/organizations can broadcast content).
A good first step would be a big lawsuit against Microsoft by victims of DDOS attacks from zombie Windows machines. Microsoft's EULA doesn't protect them against lawsuits by third party victims. I'd like to see some state attorney general file this. Elliot Spitzer could do it.
Safer? Has someone finally devised a way to stab me in the face through the internet?
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
- don't know what an operating system is.
- use IE.
- think the OEM is the only thing that makes computers different.
- that have a good Internet connection and CD burner still pay for a lot of software.
- use a commercial and proprietary 'anti-virus'.
- are morons.
Just because most americans are morons I don't want the gov't snooping into our (geeks) Internet.In light of my post on this very issue yesterday.
Most Americans are not computer professionals or even computer enthusiasts. They wouldn't know what to do about Internet security, and are too busy with other things to learn. From the results, it seems to me that most Americans either believe or hope that tech companies will make their machines safer, and that the government can do something to deter malicious security breaches, soon. It would be nice to believe that everyone has the time and ability to learn the intricacies of networked computing, but it's impractical. At least this survey does show that most Americans seem to want something done about security, and are not entirely as apathetic as they may be towards other subjects.
Sig Sig Sputnik
Maybe the goverment should make people buy Macs. =) :)
Mod me down, but a secure system is more secure than non-secure even when used by clueless user. Windows can be secured, sure -but just anyone can't do it. (btw running linux my self, I just think that most people should be running Mac OS X instead of windows -and at least Steve Jobs agrees with me
1) Where's the survey!!!
For the curious, it is the CSA Alliance Home Pagee
They only mention 2 things about the survey. Nothing truly valuable. Who did Americans trust the most? The least? What did they want the government to do? The first thing they teach in Journalism is to write about "The 5 Ws and an H" Who, what, where, why, when, and how.
2) Someone please write a meaningful headline!
Slashdot: Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer
CNN: Most want Congress to make sure Internet safe
Neither one of these headlines makes sense! The Internet is quite safe. It's not going anywhere. It is Americans who want to be safe. So how about "Americans Want Government to Ensure Safety on the Internet"
3) Not a complaint about the articles, but an observation about congress: The article mentions fraud and identity theft. Nothing about blocking porn, which is what all the congress persons are focusing on. People have dealt with porn for centuries, and the solution isn't technical. It's the fraud that they need help with.
This isn't a CNN story, they are just re-reporting it. The Associated Press in Washington reported it. Who knows where it came from. The most annoying thing is that since it comes from "AP" there is no author attached to comment to, contact or flame. As far as anyone knows, a government lobbyist group could be cracking into the AP feeds, sending God knows what over to CNN, which then becomes news.
Then, later on, some politician will use it to his / her advantage like for example, an invasion of Iraq.
These non-issues, are trumped up all the time, and it's scary and sad. AP contributors have little responsibility I think despite how quickly their reported news gets circulated around the f--ing world. Like 10 minutes the entire world gets the report that maybe totally bogus.
You know how Iraq was invaded? Bush and crew went around lobbying for it until their phone "polls" were high enough that they thought they would get away with it. Too bad the people polled didn't even know the difference between Saddam and that other guy.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
This isn't the least bit shocking. In fact, I've been waiting to hear more about things like this. When I worked at a computer retail chain, I had several customers looking for antivirus and firewall products complain about having to buy them stating that the government should more involved in regulating Internet content. The vast majority of consumers have NO CLUE what the Internet even IS let alone how it works; they treat it isomorphically to cable television where content is distributed by some central authority. (I actually had several customers think that Google, Yahoo, and other serch engines were products of Microsoft).
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
I hope this country doesn't do to the internet what has been done to radio and television (only large companies/organizations can broadcast content). I like the idea of being able to create a completely unregulated website, say whatever I want, and most it up on the internet for all to see. The commercialization of the internet frightens me. The government monitoring and controlling content, or worse, large corporations, is disturbing at best.
Want the government to hold their hand in the bathroom 'for their safety'.
Its really sad what 'we' have become.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seriously what people should worry about is the fact that something on their own computers can land them in jail while everyone upstream who had a hand in helping to place that material there gets away scott free. If the Government wants to regulate something then let them address that inequity.
I just picked up my eID. which generates both a "signature", and has other unique data.
I started playing with the API's, and the options are endless; even am trying to work out how to replace most login mechanisms and replace them by the eID in conjuction with the PIN-code in the office as it would solve ALOT of password problems. (which actually evolved to "tricks" which void "annoying" security measures)
As far I know Americans do not have an ID, and not every American is required to carry one at all times, which.. well would make it a hard thing to let the government "help" with security in this way. I only see advantages to the obligation to carry an ID overhere, and never knew it different either.
It might pop up in the US as well though, as Bill Gates has showed alot of interest in this kind of technology. But maybe not in the form of a passport-like ID; In the company my brother works at Microsoft actually checked out their simular identificationsystem they had develloped named port-e-key.
I believe these are the future for identification, perhaps with added layers like biometric identification.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
If most of the people polled are for 'bigger' government, why did a (small) majority vote for Bush? Oh, I know, because he says one thing and does the other, I forgot.
My main concern about the internet is that my 5 and 2.5 year old kids will be exposed (pun intended) to all kinds of crap (pun also intended) out there. Sure, I can have some active firewall rocking the connection, but that's just at my house. Plus, all the kids that they'll grow up with will likely be exposed to the 'raw' internet, and thus my kids will too.
So yeah, while I don't think the goverment can regulate people, they could (try) to make certain sites require more proof of ID before they can view. (I can think of plenty of ways around this, and w/o imposing some sort of China-wall, I don't really see it working)
bo
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
That's so true, you should get a 6 for this.
On a side note, I love how the public says Microsoft is more trustworthy than before. This is the biggest fallacy ever and it's directly spawning from the apathetic approach to technology that the majority of people take.
Instead of realizing that it's because their dumb asses are mindlesly installing viruses and malware on their computers because of a combination of no technical skill and using a flawed product that Microsoft puts out, they're thinking... hm... all these viruses must be SOMEONE's fault. The only someone that they know outside of themselves is the government. The gears creak and squeal to get the brain working and finally they make the connection: THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROTECT ME. And then the bullet enters their brain just after they think.... I love you BIG GOVERNMENT
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote democratic, but deep down inside you secretly
long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!"
Television can't be wrong, now, can it? Especially when it became oh so true.
Maybe the American public is forgetting about Gary McKinnon, a man who single handedly hacked into 53 US military and NASA computers.
If the military/NASA's computers were so easily insecure and easily defeated, do you really feel confident having them being held responible for the internet's security?
heatlh care
We don't want the government to give us health care, we either want them to reign in the cost *or* provide universal *insurance* coverage. It isn't even about using tax dollars, it's more about revoking the corporate charters of HMO companies or doing something about rising costs. I for one *demand* mental health parity, but last time someone did that they died in a plane crash. Of course, not supporting mental health parity in the private insurace sectors affects those without mental health problems (Crime rate. drug/alcohol use, homelessness, domestic violence... all lead to more crime thus costing the tax payer a bundle. Let's ignore the fact that those who aren't covered under private insurance are eligible for public services anyways...).
retirement
Well, we don't want old people to starve do we? You might, but I guess your political views demand that sort of thing...
education
As far back as education goes in America, it's been controlled by the states (and their governements). Private schools are one thing, but the government isn't taking those schools over, and never have. And to be brutally honest, public schools serve two purposes in America: to Americanize and Industrialize the young. Of course we don't think about those students who are second generation Americans... (see link at bottom)
freedom means freedom to fail
Yeah, I can see that point. But is that okay with most Americans? Considering 94% are said to be Christians I doubt it. Then again, what passes for Christianity now a days in America is appaling. I'm not a Xian, but let's be consistent. If "under God" stays in the pledge, the 10 commandments stay in courts and "in god we trust" stays on the dollar bill then welfare stays.
You are free to fail, but shouldn't there be a freedom to not fail as well? Is it fair that society should stack the deck against the weakest among us?
Source: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pedro31.html
Get your Unix fortune now!
From TFS:
The F*ing S______?
Scroll, Stone, Sandbox, Salad Shooter?
What exacty does "securing the internet" mean? Sounds to me like a bunch of people clamoring for something they don't even know what it means/is.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
This short utterance perfectly encapsulates the main problem not only in governing the internet, but in governing in general. Once people get the dumb idea in their heads that the government is in charge, they start expecting it to do everything for them, including the impossible, forgetting (or not caring) that it's the taxpayer who's footing the bill. Honestly, if it's unreasonable to expect the government to pay for a mechanic to fix my car, why is it reasonable to expect the government to pay for a doctor to fix my broken leg?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Why don't we ask the government to do less? They suck at most everything they do, they spend too much doing it, and perhaps I would like to be able to do decide what I do instead of making more laws and regulations that hurt our people and our economy. ISPs can offer filtering services, if we wish to use them, or we can buy software or security hardware, if we choose. Heck, PC makers could offer "secure" products, where the PC has all the extra stuff in it from purchase. Just keep the government out of my life! Next thing you know, this will be the Soviet States of America.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
people seem to think that the US government is a "democracy" and so popular opinion should always win.
wrong.
the US is a Constitutional democracy (among other flavors and adjectives I won't add) which is supposed to prevent the mob from going to town like this.
MORTAR COMBAT!
While I suspect that spraying might have some cleanup issues, I think that it is really in societies best interest.
This is a way better solutions than having all those pesky screens.
Storm
None of this will happen, because the current Administraton wants to be able to intercept, crack computers, plant trojans, obtain personal data easily, etc. If these activities became impossible, because the Internet really was secure, then they'd have to go out and do something for a change. Such a concept is too alien and too frightening. They'd rather have a few million identity thefts a year and possibly the same again for incorrect data making life miserable, because then they can make a big show about dealing with "terrorists" and "criminals", even though the total number of cases solved by Carnivore and Green Lantern combined over their entire lifetimes is dwarfed by any one single incident of a break-in resulting in data being put at risk.
No, Congress won't do anything effective - not because they can't (they can) but because they won't. They're too desperate to exploit those same weaknesses themselves, and the closing of those weaknesses would deprive them of their ability to do so.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The thing is, the article doesn't really go into detail about what the poll questions actually were or what the respondants' specific concerns were. What it hints at is the desire to see the government take action against fraud and identity theft; those are valid concerns. I saw nothing about wanting the government to do something about porn, for example.
I think this article is just another misleading, provocative piece of flamebait.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Hi Mr. News guy, I'm from Cyber Security Alliance, and we recently polled like a whole bunch of people who said that government should purchase our product..er I mean.. that government should help secure the internet. How about you publish our poll results in your press feed so it gets the attention it deserves. You want the poll results? How about just an ambiguous summary from me? Who am I? I'm their lobbyist..er I'm their Public Relations executive.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
Most Americans are stupid too.
Because, no matter how you cut it, freedom==responsibility. We, as a culture, are trying our utmost to avoid responsibility, be it at a government, corporate, or individual level.
Well, OK that's a sentiment I can admire, but some of the details are a bit unclear to me.
Let's look at some hypothetical situations.
Suppose I buy a TV set at a big box store, and pay for it with a credit card. Naturally, this puts my identity, address and credit card information into the store's database. Now that store offers real time checking, through a remote application server, to the store's system, so that people can check the web to see if an item is in stock before driving over. It happens the application server is poorly secured, and the store's local systems trust the app server. Black hats penetrate the app server, and use the trust to steal my credit card and other identity information.
Now, are you saying it is my responsibility to investigate the security practices of a store before buying anything with a credit card there? And that if there were a federal law holding the store responsible for using my information responsibily, or even establishing minimal security practices for handling such data, are you saying this would make me less free?
How about this. I had an account with a local bank, that was swallowed up by a bigger regional bank, that was in turn swallowed up by Bank of America. One of the things BOA really, really wants me to do is to do my banking transactions on line; to pay my bills etc. Stands to reason, it's much more profitable for them than handling a paper check, and I'm perfectly willing to go along. Now to set up my account, it turns out all I have to do is go to their web site and enter some stuff from my paper statement, and they set up a login for me, from which I can send money to anybody or any place from any place with just a web browser.
This should give anybody with half a brain the heebie jeebies, because (1) if I didn't set up the account, somebody who snitched my statement could. (2) My money and identity is sitting on the server connected to the Internet, even if I hadn't decided to set up the online account. Even if I didn't opt in, I'd still better pray for BOAs guys to be ahead of the bad guys 100% of the time.
Now, am I more free because BOA can treat my identity and money this way? Is it my responsibility to audit their security policies? Or -- since I as an individual have absolutely no way to do this even if I had the expertise, does having the huge responsibility of guessing which bank is lying the least when they boast about their security, does that mean I'm proportionally freer? Freer than if I could simply go by the security rating awarded to them by some future Bank Data Security board?
I do have a few friends who opt out of all this. They don't have credit cards, and they cut up their ATM cards when their bank sends one to them. They do business with one of the last local banks in existence, which has a handful of branches around town. They're not technological illiterates either, quite the opposite. They've just chosen to opt out of any consumer financial convenience that has become common since, oh, 1970. They live in a world of paper check registers, savings pass books, and bank tellers who know them by name.
Is this what true freedom and responsiblity look like?
Low transaction costs and rapid movement of money are a public good. Security is a public good. Everyone benefits from these things. But private industry is not in the business of providing public goods. In practical terms, this means a private entity has a choice between handling data in a way that a client should trust, and creating the impression that is doing these things, it will take the option that maximizes its profits. The reason having the fox guard the chicken coop is a bad idea is not that foxes are evil, it's just that we're asking the fox to do something w
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
CSIA funds a survey saying that 71% of voters are scared of the internet. Who sells products aimed at protecting them from the internet? Why, CSIA members, of course!
Hmmm...coincidence?
What is funny here,is that they _never_ show any question. You can pretty much influence people the way you ask question so that they reply the way you want !
Won't Somebody PLEASE Think of the Children?!
More than a couple decades of international home BBSes like CompuServe and over a decade of home internet availability and the majority of Americans still don't have a clue that the internet is an INTERNATIONAL entity? What do these people surveyed think Congress is going to do -- carpet bomb internet HQ with MK77?
The thing is, what can the gov really do? not much for the weather and not much for the net. Yes they can make some laws against pollution and against hackers, but it's all the same: indirect solutions but nothing really efficient, so stop asking impossible stuff to the gov.
The average person "wants the government to be heavily involved in securing the Internet, want to eat the cake, don't trust the governmental bodies, trust Microsoft with security, don't knows what it wants Congress to do, wants Congress to do something, don't have a lot of confidence that Congress will do the right thing."
:)
To me it sounds this person is mental shizo
What happened with claimed "group wisdom", where the group of 30 people can count beans in the glass better than any of them separately?
And those people are allowed to vote for president????
Andrew
Why is it that people think that congress, or some sort of govenment needs to be involved in every little aspect of your life? Aren't the laws that we have that regulate theft, fraud, criminal conduct (sexual or not) enough? Can't they be interpeted to pertain to the internet? Even juristictional questions aren't really all that thorny are they - if the victim is in the US then the crime happened in the US. Extradition agreements take care of the rest of it.
I'm a liberal (I guess) but I don't think we need to be a country with detailed laws for everything! The laws that we have should be written to be broad enough to cover whatever. Do we really need laws that regulate the amount of water a toilet uses to flush itself? We actually have a law that dictates that!
Do we need protection from the scumbags on the internet? Absolutly. Do they need to be internet laws? Absolutly not, existing criminal laws should cover it.
What do typical non-tech savvy individuals consider as "safe". Are we talking about the neo conservative Christians who don't want their kids having access to pornography and profanity online? (too lazy to install a browsing filter) Or are we talking about the people who are too incompetent to install firefox, a firewall and adware removal program because they can't browse without getting malicious programs or pop ups on their PC!? I can't count the number of people that I know personally, and meet on a regular basis, who fall into the latter category. I spend ridiculous amounts of time helping out my parents and friends who can't comprehend these ideas. I don't disgust it by any means, and love to help others, but when are people going to figure these simple things out on their own!?
...most people are stupid, incredibly so.
Yeah, I can believe that more people trust Microsoft than the FBI.
But then again, I've watched "Waco: The Rules Of Engagement". Anyone dumb enough to trust the FBI really needs to watch that movie.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Disagreeing with the current leadership of the United States does not equate to hatred of those who reside there. I completely disagree with the current leadership, and I'm patriotic through and through. It's because I love my country that I am so sad and disgusted to see George W. Bush and his cronies flushing it down the toilet. "Republican" is no synanym for "patriot", and we're free to disagree with whatever we wish. Learn about our freedoms in this country if you don't fully understand that.
Le français vous intéresse?
"Of course that's what the poll said...most Americans who don't want the government involved didn't participate in the survey, for fear that the government would flag them as 'potential terrorists'.
After all, if you don't want our fine government securing our internet, you must be a terrorist!"
I think author meant this to be funny
Vote for Pedro
... I am in the wrong business!
Thanks to this little piece of trivia, I am going to begin my new profession!
Now to just go call Acme and order my new "Credit Card Fraud Kit"!!
Financial Independence here I come!!
I'm too lazy to enter a sig. Hey wait a second! You tricked me!
The poll was administered by a computer security industry consortium, and the results boil down to "the government should pay private industry to come up with better computer security" - who'd a thunk it? You don't think they would tailor the questions to get the answers they're looking for, do you?
When I read that quote in the article, another quote became all too tragically clear:
"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite"
- Joseph de Maistre
You might know it better by this slight rephrasing in English:
"[In a democracy,] the people get the government they deserve."
Do something about it! Don't treat politics as taboo among your friends and family. As long you don't become confrontational, education and discussion are the first step towards a working democracy.
How can the US government control what a web site in Christmas Island does? Aren't they out of their juristiction? Each nation has different laws that cover different things. What is against the law in the USA, might not be against the law in another nation, so why force that nation to follow US law?
It would be better to have people who are easily offended have a "baby sitter" program installed on their computer that can filter out bad web sites, and block messages from people using obscene words, etc. That way they get the Internet the way they want it, censored to fit their tastes of what they consider to be harmful or obscene filtered out, and the rest of the users can have uncensored access if they so wish it. In fact, I think some ISPs offer a web proxy that filters out the bad web sites for parents, etc.
Why censor it for the rest of us, just because a few object?
That my generally declining opinion of the public at large - American, Australian, European, Asian, Etc - is not without cause.
Like I said in my more rant-like post concerning the PATRIOT Act, most people today want convenience.
They don't want Rights, or Freedom, or the ability to think whatever they like, they want Convenience and Comfort.
They don't want to have to think about something that might make them uncomfortable or that they have to learn to understand. They want someone else to process it, break it down into bite-size chunks, and regurgitate it up in the form of convenient fast food, comfortable television programming, uncontroversial news, positive government reports, and the latest cookie-cutter entertainment.
The public at large are idiots and need to learn that the only thing more convenient then when we have now would be all of us in a fucking mylar bags to live in, being fed introveinously and waste removed with more pipes, and having our eyes and ears hardwired into a mindless hash of multimedia crap.
Maybe then they'll stop looking for the most convenient and comfortable solution to all their problems and start thinking for themselves...
No, probably not. Does black look good in Mylar?
His name is Robert Paulsen...
So, while the respondents who were polled wanted laws to protect them against identity theft, computer viruses and spam, they didn't trust Congress and the FTC to make the right decisions. Shocking.
n ternet_Security_Survey_June_2005.pdf
So, whats the solution? None is offered, but it is suggested that government action + industry action + "something else" is needed.
Read the full study at https://www.csialliance.org/resources/pdfs/CSIA_I
How long the Earth takes to go around the sun is a basic question designed to probe people for the tiniest shred of scientific knowledge. Is it important to your daily life? No. But it's damn near impossible to have any scientific knowledge without having some of the basics stick, so the question is probably a good proxy for scientific ignorance.
If someone can't answer "A year" to that question, will they know anything about stem cell research when it comes time to vote? Global warming? What will they think about "evolution is a theory, not a fact" stickers in textbooks?
For that matter, will they be so ignorant they might be dangerous to society because, for example, they don't know that taking antibiotics spuriously or improperly can breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains?
It reminds me of a saying I heard a long time ago: A man who knows how will always have a job; a man who knows why will always be his boss. If Americans do not know 'why', they are not in charge of their own destiny. Ignorance is the greatest enemy we face.
After all this talk about how our society doesn't want the responsibility that our freedoms require. And all this talk about how atleast a very sizable portion of our citizens want to trade their freedoms for a sense of security. Don't you think that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said that the common man should not have the right to vote. This isn't flame bait. Just stop and think for a moment.
A very large and vocal portion of US citizens spoke out against the Electoral College. But can you honestly say that ALL, or even a Majority of voters actually took the time to 'get to know' the people they voted for? How many voted with 'the party' making this country even more unnecessarily polarized. How many people voted agaist a candidate? How many people voted with someone, or some group say family, relatives, friends; not as in went to the polls with them but voted the same because that's what their 'insert title here' was voting for?
I'm not saying that only land owners should have the right to vote. I'm not saying that only the intellectuals should have the right to vote. I'm saying that there should be some system instituted that would better suit the needs of this country and our hard earned, and often taken for granted freedoms.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Internet is safe, it's not like someone gonna jump out of the screen and stab you.
The only one I would trust is EFF and FSF.
In related news: people trust George W. Bush with defeating terrorism.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
:q!
After all this talk about how our society doesn't want the responsibility that our freedoms require. And all this talk about how atleast a very sizable portion of our citizens want to trade their freedoms for a sense of security. Don't you think that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said that the common man should not have the right to vote. This isn't flame bait. Just stop and think for a moment. A very large and vocal portion of US citizens spoke out against the Electoral College. But can you honestly say that ALL, or even a Majority of voters actually took the time to 'get to know' the people they voted for? How many voted with 'the party' making this country even more unnecessarily polarized. How many people voted agaist a candidate? How many people voted with someone, or some group say family, relatives, friends; not as in went to the polls with them but voted the same because that's what their 'insert title here' was voting for? I'm not saying that only land owners should have the right to vote. I'm not saying that only the intellectuals should have the right to vote. I'm saying that there should be some system instituted that would better suit the needs of this country and our hard earned, and often taken for granted freedoms. He was a founding father, an intelligent man, and a man who understood how a democratic government should work. (p.s. Yes this is very similiar to another post. I posted accidentally as anonymous. I've fixed it the best that I could.)
I would like it if the government installed a seatbelt on the chair in front of my PC. I would fell much safer this way. But I don't want the government involved in any other aspect of my computing, they can't even get their own website right. www.whitehouse.com
I don't know if anyone else here has had problems dealing with candian (.ca) domain name registrars, from within the USA, but it's the worst way to control their domains, imho.
If ICANN took on some of the (facist) initiatives that CIRA has, the (.com) namespace would be nothing but capitalist sites, which would probably increase spyware activities imo, seeing as most of the exploits are created by anti-virus software developers, marketing research organizations, etc, etc.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
We want the government to make the internet safer. But when asked about the specific things the government does to make the internet safer - read our email, monitor our porn downloading, etc. - we want the prohibit the government from doing any of those specific things.
The problem is, and im sure Microsoft and the US government will agree with me: most people are retards. The masses can't be trusted with anything, if they could then we would just have a referendum a couple of times a year and vote on all the relevant issues. The idea of a democratically elected government is that only the reasonably competent among us will manage to get in to power. Now I know most people would hesitate to categorise George W Bush as reasonably competent, but he does have a group of advisers (you can see them burying their faces in their hands at some of his speeches) and legal experts and most decisions have a bit of time spent on them. The masses don't understand simple concepts - ie 'If you don't like what's on the Internet, get an ISP with filtering or don't use it' and its absolutely amazing how many people equate any kind of computer 'hacking' to witch-craft - those evil hackers can magically put dangerous viruses onto peoples computers and that scares people. Another example is terrorism - the dirty bomb for example is actually predicted to do very little damage, the most injuries would come from mass panic and there would likely be a total break down in law and order and organised rescue and clean-up, its because people are fucking lemmings and some of them need to be put in their place. Often politicians scare me when they say stupid things, but ive come to realise that even the party you don't like in power is a million times better than randomly selecting 100 people off the streets - which brings me neatly back to this randomly sampled poll as proof.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Oh, man...where to start...
/really/ think CNN did this on it's own? What would be the impetus for them to do that?) figured they need a different way of reaching their end. So 'they' decide that this poll should show that the internet should be controlled anyhow.
CNN has for the past years been quite a prominent PR tool. It's days of independant reporting are long gone, if they ever where. 'Embedded reporters' and the rest of Iraq pretty much prove a lack of real independant reporting. Only when blogs and other mediqa force them to will they report on contreoversial issues.
So is it curious that CNN reports that US-ians want someone medling in their internets? Of course not. Who pays the pollster?
Let me put it like this: "Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer". WTF is 'safer'?
Has the internet ever killed anyone? Or is it trhe 'morality' of the internet US-ians are concerned about? Kinda like being worried about the morality of a gun, no?
But due to the way the populace is finally starting to see the government, post PATRIOT ACT and post the so-many-eth contradiction in stance (pornstars at the white house, anyone?), 'they' (ie the people who have paid the pollsters...do you
Then let's have a look at that answer. My brother has studied psychology, and I've had numerous discussion with him about the validity of questionaires. AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT A PROPPERLY CONSTRUCTED POLL WOULD SHOW THE RESULT CNN'S DOES!
I can't stress this enough: a poll could not reveal this alternative. ANy psychologist worth his/her degree can't have constructed a poll which goes:
-Do you want the internet censored?
-Who should do this?
-Do you trust them to do it?
-Who should do it then?
It really does not work like that. This poll is suspect in so many ways:
a) the question it asks
b) the fact that this question was asked in the first place
c) the fact that an alternative conclusion was reached (instead of a resolution to the primary question)
d) the fact that the alternative conclusion is left undefined!!!
This questionaire was bought and paid for. And we'll never know by whom. All we know is that it serves someones purpose, because otherwise CNN wouldn't publish the results.
And the biggest irony? A story on the front page talking about MS' censorship of chinese blogs...
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
From the article you qouted: "More than 70 percent knew oxygen comes from plants..."
Which you described as "30% of americans do not know that plants produce most of the Oxygen on earth..."
Apparantly many americans (I am assuming you're american based on your final paragraph) also lack critical thinking skills in determining what information is actually being provided.
Using you as an example. Though the ABC poll correctly stated that oxygen comes from plants and asserts that only 70% of americans know this fact, it does not mention that oxygen comes from other sources than plants. Among these are vulcanism and organisms other than plants. A majority of our oxygen probably comes from blue-green algae in the sea. Your statement is neither correct nor a correct interpretion of the results of the poll.
Oxygen comes from plants. Not all oxygen comes from plants. Most oxygen comes from sources that are not plants, but could be called plants if you're playing fast and loose with the definition of 'plant.'
From your final quote, "...and from the Highlights of the report, '...One-quarter of Americans understand the nature of scientific inquiry well enough to be able to make informed judgments about the scientific basis of results reported in the media...'"
We all need to remember that there's a good chance we're not in the "one-quarter" of americans who understand the nature of scientific inquiry. (assuming the results of the poll can be considered as an accurate sampling of all americans)
I never understood the get-out-the-vote campaigns either. It's very likely that the people who weren't going to vote don't pay very much attention at all. I certainly agree that we don't want people who can't be bothered to pay attention to 'the issues,' form an opinion of them and act on that opinion of their own volition shouldn't be encouraged to choose leaders for the rest of us.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
42.3% of those surveyed answered "Huh?"
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Whoever commissions the poll gets to write the questions, and whoever writes the questions gets to choose the outcome. The poll was commissioned by a security industry lobby group and the result turns out to be in favour of exactly the sorts of things they're pushing for. Colour me surprised.
I think the best news in that article is that the poll showed people didn't want more government interference. That shows me that there's real opposition to the whole idea and not even leading questions can get past it.
You know, before I go asking that my local police department do a better job protecting the streets, I do other, more basic, security checks, like CLOSING AND LOCKING MY DOORS (firewall, antivirus, password protection), and I exercise COMMON SENSE and CAUTION in who I give the access code for my garage door or home alarm system to (phishing, social hacking).
Who DDOS'ed you America? Why, it was your fellow Americans who want the freedom of having an open line of communication with the rest of the world but don't want to be burdened by any sense of responsibility for what their own computer sends out over that communication line.
Before you ask the governemt to waste our time and money "securing the Internet," and sacrifice freedoms that you obviously are too irresponsible to use prudently, a better starting point would be securing your own damn computer.
I don't ask that every person become a security guru, but it seems like wreckless, complete and total irresponsibility has become the status quo. Your computer is connected to the entire world, every country on the map. Why can't people be convinced to CARE, to even MAKE AN EFFORT to secure their own computers?
Most Americans didn't care about the Microsoft antitrust suit, and a significant number of them are shareholders either direct or through mutual funds. The American government has proven itself incapable of regulating its most influential subjects. And Microsoft's direct destruction of the browser market has had a severe impact on internet security. Not that competition can stop things like users handing out passwords for candy, but it's certainly a healthy step forward.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
...um, am I the only one who remembers "The Heart of Darkness" by Conrad? Anyone else recognize the name Kurtz?
Yeah... didn't think so.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
It's not that MY child needs protecting, it's that YOU and YOUR child need to be protected, as you're obviously incapable of doing so to my satisfaction.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
If security starts at the government _ANY_GOVERNMENT_ it brings you unvanted stupid filters and regulations that will cripple the more advanced users' internet.
...
...
More of:
-port restrictions (killing eg SMTP, IRC,IMAP because for the most INTERNET=WEB (http(s))
-monitoring
-private ips (as opposed to public)
-proxies - that cripple things (many times I have perfect net, but my ISP forces http thru a transparent proxy, that sometimes does weird things)
security should be at the users' level, or ON REQUEST at the isp
I want public IP, no port restriction (IN-OUT), I want to run my webserver, and other services on strange ports at home (for whatever geeky or practical reason that comes into my mind)
If they trust MS security, they should be sent to the doctor for a head check, then charge them a lot by their ISP to cripple THEIR internet
wow a real poll, hows that line go again,,,
"Lies,Damn lies and Statistics!"
Polls mean nothing unless you can look at the actual polling data and see what the proponent of a given position left out to skew the data results
why the hell would we want more power over the internet in the hands of people who dont understand technology. how very foolish. Sorry Joe America but just because you dont understand the internet is not a reason for the government and congress (who also dont understand the internet) to step in... that will just make matters worse.
People either need to learn how to deal with spyware and viruses, get an apple or not use a computer. We dont need any more DMCA or filters on what is currently a free and open information channel.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Most Americans want the gornment to make the Earth flat.
"It would make things much simpler" said Mr. J. Sixpack.
The geek community was surprisingly open to the idea.
Mr. A. Coward from slashdot believed to represent the common sentiment saying: "At least it will get rid of those awful Google Maps distortions".
'I don't think the public knows what it wants Congress to do, but it wants Congress to do something,...
And Congress will pass laws with ambitious and sweeping names that will, at best, have no net positive effect on the problem, but the public will be appeased, thinking It Was Taken Care Of and the incumbents will be re-elected Because They Did the Right Thing(TM).
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
How in the heck is that Redundant, of all things? Mod him down if you must, but REDUNDANT?!
If I hear we need to protect the children one more fucking time, I'm going to get an offshore hosting account and make the most obscene material I can find available to them. Let's see what happens when the kids find out their mom was in a german scheisse film.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
If this poll approached anything near reality, I'd eat a shoe. Whole.
See through the lies and what do you have as a result of this bogus poll, US citizens starting to accept government regulation of the Internet... "well i heard about that poll..." and "yes, Microsoft is good with security (thinking to the poll)...."
utter trite Fud, this.
GGP too, while you're at it...
It depresses me that the American public appears to think that the United States has any particular authority over the regulation of the Internet. I think it's this sense of ignorant entitlement that makes us so unpopular around the globe.
You mean the "Great FREEDOM Wall of America", right? Just checking
It has to be said, most American's are downright stupid too...
= 9J =
Most Americans want the government to be heavily involved in securing the Internet.
Maybe they're still waiting for Al Gore to fix it since he invented it.
What I want to know is: Who are most Americans and why do I NEVER get asked questions like this.
I'd say that if you actually explained to Average Joe that the government wants to know how, when and where he accesses porn, then you'd get a different answer to this question.
I don't think the public wants the Guvmint policing the internet. What I do think they want is harsh penalties, fines and jailtime for people who are dishonest. The problem is, we already have laws in place to deal with theft and fraud. It's a matter of using what we have and updating where needed, instead of creating entirely new laws that restrict the liberty of the honest man with no thought to protecting that liberty.
can't tell the Internet from Internet Explorer. I think the same could be said for Australians, or citizens of any other Internet-enabled country.
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
Too many people are like this, what would you expect. It's Da Rules
So what happens? You get a problem that is vaguely defined by one group of people given to another group of people who could give a rats ass about the problem. They have no personal involvement in addressing the problem itself. At the very most, all they really have an interest in is making it appear to the first group that they are doing something effective about whatever the problem is.
I'm certain that Douglas Adams has written something to this effect. If not him, then Dilbert has probably covered it.
No matter if the poll is skewed or funded by filthly lying bastards, it still conveys what is essentially a truth here in America: that people want to be protected from things they perceive as being bad (even though that perception has probably been blown way out of proportion due to "feature stories" and "special reports" and various other "news" sources) and they don't want to put a lot of effort into procuring that protection for themselves.
"Terrorists are going to kill me, here in IDAHO?!?!?! Hell yes I'll give up a few freedoms here and there to prevent that!"
"People can steal my identity if I use my computer?!?! Hell yes I'll allow the government or someone to filter web content for me, so I don't have to think while surfing the web."
The real problem here is that the people most likely to adapt to problems that arise AREN'T the people making the laws, and they AREN'T getting out there and making their voices heard. And so you get someone like Strom Thurman, who even if he wasn't a big-business swill, wouldn't know a computer if it jumped up and BIT HIM IN THE ASS while screaming "I'M A FUCKING COMPUTER, YOU OLD FUCKING PISS-POOR EXCUSE FOR A POLITICIAN!"
That, and people are great and being lazy, and great at being after-the-fact armchair-generals.
Just... like... me...
Ack!
Here's how to secure the internet: Drop software patents and the remaining crypto export laws, and encourage other countries to do the same. The market will take care of the rest.
...I just want Microsoft to make their little contribution to the internet safer.
Anyone who knows anything at all knows that asking the government to do something for them is like asking an pathologically lying elephant to tap dance a jig on a two foot by two foot stage... it's not going to happen even though you're begin told it is, but should it actually be attempted, you stand a chance of getting seriously injured in the fallout.
Microsoft's not much different, but at least there is a commercial motivation for them to fix their shit.
What is money anyway? It's just a number in the bank's computer system! Hello, sir; money is not based on reality anymore. It's just a printed slip of paper that the bank prints (the fed, or the bank at "the top" of the pyramid) and you believe in.
Furthermore:
Your identity is not real. It's just a number in the IRS's system. A name, just a few letters that symbolize what? YOU? What is you? The only thing you have of inherent value is your ability to work and think and entertain.
I say OPEN up the id, I don't care. Use my ID for whatever you want. I want to see the whole thing crash down on itself. I never protect my identity.
Here's my info: Use as you will, if you want to risk it:
Richard G. Harrison
1104 S. Willson Ave, #C
Bozeman, MT 59015
SSN: 567-39-2315
B-Day: 09-16-1974
Mother's Maiden Name: Whitacre
The password I use at every site: pencil
Where they require a number, it's 9pencil or pencil9, eight or more pencil99 or 99pencil.
(from the movie Wargames, heh, I get a kick out of it)
Go ahead, log into BofA and get into my account. Transfer ALL my money to your account (there's over $4000.00 in the account, plus my savings.)
I guarantee personally right now that that money will be replaced. IT COSTS THE BANK NOTHING TO REPLACE MONEY! Sure, they'll hunt down the target account, which was just opened with a fake ID in Arizona somewhere, or whatever you want to do to stay safe from the probing authorities.
Hey, how about a Visa card?!
4872890128142786
exp: 12/08
security number (CVN): 972
Use my address as the billing address! STEAL AWAY! Go for it, take my number and go buy something. Go to Amazon, go to Dell.com and get yourself a new computer! I WON'T PAY A DIME OUT OF MY POCKET! Why? Because the MONEY NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! After the charge is made, the credit card company will send a promise to pay to the "merchant bank" of the company. Then they will run some sort of nightly batch on all the day's transactions and figure out how much money they need to cover the transactions. At this point, interest begins being charged to my account, but not added to the account because of grace period.. the bank doesn't actually pay anyone though, they just, after running the batch, subtract x dollars from their number and then add x dollars to the other guys number. But where did they get a number? Well, that's right folks, the borrowed it from the guys who PRINTED THE MONEY, the feds. Well, if they are a smaller bank they probably went thru a bigger bank which went thru a bigger bank which went thru the Fed. The fed says, sure, we'll print this money for you, but you have to "GIVE IT BACK" *nudge *nudge* "Sometime in the future" "plus interest". But really, it never gets paid back. Because the fed then goes and sells these things called "T BILLS" which are basically a stack of those promises the big bank made to pay the money the fed printed for them back. So, they sell these "notes" off and they don't have to worry about getting the money back. and it gets more interwoven and complicated until it's all just a mess of shit bought and sold a thousand times with money that hasn't and never will exist.
So anyway, it's all pretty much meaningless. So go ahead and "steal" my money, but really, the bank is going to give it back to me because it costs them nothing.
So who loses; well.. Dell Computer loses, but they have that factored into their "profit margin" (or "money printer" for the layman) so it's not a problem.
And you get a new computer.
So, you see, I have no reason to protect my identity, in fact, it would be better for the economy if NO ONE did, because money would be able to be bought and sold even more times with money that never has and never will exist, which is called "economic expansion".
WEE
Anyway, this was a work of fiction, that's not my name, SSN, or card and you shouldn't have read this far anyway.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
I'd rather have Congress fix themselves before fixing the internet, considering they certainly can't change or fix something that exists across the world. Theoretically, they can at minimum fix themselves first.
Regardless of that -- I refuse to believe that the entire country's net has to become a firewalled, ultra-secure state in order for anyone to feel safe, or for us to have "freedom". It is my belief that both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights demand and expect that we are to be citizens of the world, participating in the world. NOT a self-jailer.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
"'I don't think the public knows what it wants Congress to do, but it wants Congress to do something,...They don't have a lot of confidence that Congress will do the right thing.'"
Alternative heading: Why Humans Don't Work.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
essentially the story boils down to:
"Americans still stupid"
mind you I'm an American, but i don't count.
-and occasionaly a giant moose.
No, it won't be made with French labor! It will be assembled from Chinese components by genetically modified ex-Walmart employees (Walmart uses robots and child labor instead). And Halliburton will manage the contract.
... and then they built the supercollider.
One could make a survey simply asking people "Are you tired of high taxes?" and then report that a large number of people are in favor of closing schools and libraries. Survey results without the source material are as good as an opinion from "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot. :-/
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
What good is bitching that government fix your problems, when you have to just leave the house and go looking for a more secure operating system. Wait: you don't even have to leave your house...
Second: what the hell would LAWS do anyway? The internet is a technical beast, not a legal one...
(anyway, I don't want to bitch about the US in general, nice country it is)
Microsoft's email clients will open attachments all by themselves.
These must have been the Americans who voted for Bush. What the Hell are a bunch of fat stupid congressmen going to do about your incompetence with a computer?
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!