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...".
- 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
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.
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.
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.
-Mayor Joe Quimby
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."
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
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
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.
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.
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.
How about more aggressively pursing internet based fraud, such as identity theft?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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.
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
"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.
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 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
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.
Enough said.
In related news: people trust George W. Bush with defeating terrorism.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
A recent poll done on the streets of London say Slashdot user Aeiri is the biggest prick in the world. 5,281 people were polled, and only 2 had dissenting opinions. The survey was conducted by Slashdot Users R' Us based in Paris.
See, I can do it too, why do you think it's not possible for reporters to do it as well?
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.