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
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
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.
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.
-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."
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.
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.
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
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.