Slashdot Mirror
Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws
A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.
They do that, all bets are off. They'll be encrypted VPNs, private nets and all sorts of things that they'll NEVER be able to control. The tighter your grip becomes, the more Nets will slip through your fingers!
My blog
in u.s.
remember what happened to u.s. tourism after that patriot act shit was dropped in the congress ? u.s. tourism sector NEVER recovered from it.
excuse me but the rest of the world cant take that kind of shit from u.s. again. if that happens, we all will just create another internet, complete with its root dnses (possibly in brussels), and get done with it. and then u.s. broadband, backbone providers can shove the fibers they laid in those senators asses. because they will be good for only doing that afterwards.
Read radical news here
And what happens if ISPs are ordered to block all encrypted packets for which the DHS doesn't hold the keys in escrow? And phone companies are ordered to block all unauthorized modem carriers? Difficult to get around restrictive "cyber laws" when the government can exercise control over the infrastructure.
Insert that old 'First they came for the...' thing here. People are creatures of habit and comfort. Unless someone comes into their house, brandishing a rifle or a club, most aren't going to react on that kind of a scale. They'll talk about it, but the logistics of moving out of your home country are extremely difficult to work through unless you're already mobile or have been planning such a thing for years.
You're joking, right? This would mean the end of Outsourcing U.S. I.T. jobs to India and other places. Someone in the U.S. would need to pick up the slack. There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.
Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.
I'm a brit, born in the seventies. The IRA was part of my life.
Way, Way, Way back before 911 us brits lived with terrorism on a daily basis. Terrorism that was funded via NORAID.
My grandfather nerely died in the early 60s from an IRA bomb in the centre of London during a national exhibition.
In central London, for as long as I have known we have never had refuse bins on our underground system, the reason being 'because if we did, the IRA would put bombs in them'
wtf is going on here?
I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced. (that our friends in the USA funded)
Fsckwits
There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.
And in fascist police states, selling jackboots to jackboot-less thugs is a growth sector. The jingle in the pocket doesn't make the boot stamping on a face forever any more palatable.
And, oddly enough, we'd probably still outsource bootmaking. Cuz, you know, face-stomping has to be cost-effective to maximize shareholder value.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
One major political function of these plans is to have PR: look like you can command decisively and keep the population confident in your abilities. Another is to be able to turn these disasters into an opportunity to pass legislation/budget that the people would normally choke on. GWB played both these cards really well.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You know, there are other forms of encryption besides SSL that don't require a certificate of any kind.
.gov, defeating the purpose.
Anyway, when this becomes an issue (trust me, it's a 'when'), who signed the certificate will be totally ignored, because the only way to get a certificate that isn't self-signed would be through the
What could possibly count as a cyber 9/11? Honestly, other then security holes that need to be patched and some government's website being hacked, there isn't much that can go wrong with the web that isn't already happening or has happened before.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
At least then we stand a fighting chance of not losing the rest of what once made this country great.
No, I'm voting for Bob Barr. Between McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama, add Hillary to the ticket though and I'd vote for McCain if his running mate isn't too bad. If there wasn't another person running, but there is. McCain scares me but not as much as Hillary does.
We've got a lot of knuckleheads who still need it spelled out for them, thanks to our corporate media and Republican party that likes to manipulate the weakest minds with ugly racism and sexism.
On the other hand there's the Democratic Party, and the mass media that supports it, that wants to turn the country into a nanny state.
For those of us that DO live in the US, remember, nothing short of a landslide victory for Obama is going to keep the tin-pot dictators of the GOP out of the White House this time.
Yea, who needs the tin-pot, or socialist dictators, when you can have liberty instead by voting for the Libertarian candidate?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I want you to read the "PATRIOT Act" before you try to discuss it with me.
It's Public Law 107-56, easy to find, and not a difficult read.
I want you to tell me, specifically, what sections you disagree with, and why.
For the record, I have a few problems with the surveillance provisions, but it is a bigger problem that people who have not even read the Act, make comments about it as if it is somehow the source of all evil in the government. Such talk only serves to complicate things for those of us who take anti-government positions on various issues. And few of the pundits on either side of the argument seem to have much of a grasp on what the PATRIOT Act does or does not contain.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
> Yes, necessary and proper and the commerce clause among others.
No. Don't even try the commerce clause. And forget necessary and proper as that is literally a unlimited license to legislate. Consider that the 9th and 10th Amendments were added after and thus superceed. And they explicitly say any power not spelled out is forbidden to the Federal Government.
> Because the constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to
> interpret the law, not you, not Obama and not some random
> congresscritter from Texas.
No, that was just a bad Star Trek episode you are thinking about. The "e plub neista" isn't just for Chiefs and Sons of Chiefs and it isn't just for Supremes to hand down from on high. The Constituition is a remarkably well written document that should be understandable by anyone with a basic compentecy in English. The Courts are indeed required to rule on corner cases, complex interractions between laws and various levels of government, etc. But any fool can see where the Socialists have been wiping their asses on the Constituition. And frankly it is about time we loudly and clearly called them on it, and if that doesn't work use our 'sporting goods' to add extra emphasis. While we still can.
> Are you one of those idiots who think the income tax isn't valid too?
Although some do make arguments that that Amendment wasn't properly ratified, questions of that nature ARE within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and we have to abide by their rulings or declare a Revolution. Not quite ready for THAT. :)
Democrat delenda est
You're worried about a nanny state so you want to vote for Bob Barr? The guy wants to control your bedroom and your religion.
The Libertarian Party would not have chosen Bob Barr as it's candidate if he still wanted control. He himself said he was wrong and now opposes government control. I once opposed him but now I can support him. Of course, as with all other politicians, he needs to be monitored.
He led the fight to try and get the Army's first Wiccan Distinctive Faith Group disbanded (he lost that one).
During the 2000 campaign Bush went so for as to say Wicca wasn't a religion "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." I'm not one myself but I have studied it and have friends who are Wiccans. Several years ago I probably gave my sister a shock, she's a Christian even though she doesn't act like one all the tyme, when she asked me if I wanted to join a church and I said I was thinking of joining a Wiccan Coven.
Add tot hat the fact that the Libertarians would demolish the what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America
Corporate libertarians perhaps. However: "B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?" Libertarians oppose the power corporations wield. Many corporations got their power by monopoly and Libertarians oppose monopolies. Corporations also offer stockholders limited liability, and Libertarians would end that thus making stockholders liable for actions the corporations take. It's Democrats, and others, who spread such lies that Libertarians would allow corporations to get away with whatever they want.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
who is the internet market going to cater to when they are practically cut down from rest of the world ? excuse me, what was your population again ? ~300 mil. how much of that uses internet in a manner that will sustain it financially (apart from using only mail) ? probably ~100 mil. compare this number to the user number for the entire world, which is 1,463,632,361 , and youll see what will happen. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
i hate to break it to you but an isolated economy cant survive. u.s. i.t. sector wont be able to live only doing small time automation websites/intranet bastardizations to mid size manufacturers. because thats what you will be reduced to when cut from rest of the world.
Read radical news here
> It's not *my* interpretation that matters here, nor is it yours.
You are free to think as you will, please don't presume to make you lack of self confidence binding upon me. I can read and no amount of argument will ever convince me that the Supreme Court hasn't usurped it's legitimate authority. They do not have the power to amend the Constituition. So far they have removed the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments entirely and came within a single vote of removing the 2nd. They are outlaws.
At this point I'm still petitioning my government for a redress of grievences hoping for a miracle because revolution isn't even much of an option anymore.... a nation fit for self government wouldn't have allowed things to get this out of hand.
Democrat delenda est
I'm not Obama fan, but, really.....are you that concerned about a terrorist attack?
I'm really not...I feel I have less a chance getting clipped by a terrorist attack, than I am about having my own continuously paranoid government infringing on my rights and privacy here in the US. I feel most of the things they have been doing, are highly misdirected....why aren't they concentrating more on shipping containers and the like where a nuke might likely come in? Stuff like that, rather than impeding my right to travel without a RealID, or strip search before getting on a plane, etc....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I remember the War on Drugs (marijuana) was kicked into high gear when Clinton got a general to be his drug czar. Arrest the DOUBLED to the 750,000 a year level they are at now.
I remember then a-hole supreme Clinton haveing the gall to tell Rolling Stone when he left that we should legalize marijuana.
I remember the DMCA, COPA and the democrats giving radio to their buddies at Clearchannel.
I remember that teh democrats last time around bombed more countries than the US. The WMD lies were just as big in kosovo if not bigger since the democrats supported and trained the LARGEST and BEST ARMED terror group in the world according to you own CIA, the albanians drug lords who control the majority of the heroin trade in europe.
I remember seeing wanted criminals from INTERPOL sitting have coffee with our secretary of state. Same wanted terrorists ended up going to the democratic convention in 2004 to pay hommage to their benefactors.
I remember that Bin Laden and thousands of his muhajeddins were working on our side in Bosnia (where we vetoed the first four international peace plans that the two other groups had agreed to) and finding it amusing that no one remembered taht a few yaers later.
I remember working in europe about 10 years ago and seeing 450,000 people in the streets of Athens protesting Clintons visit. I remember a protest march in Rome that had 120,000 protesting the illegal war/bombings in the Balkans, with the news showing the same amount all over europe and the world but no reference of these in our free press.
I remember the two Clintonista women going on their tour of Saudi Arabia clutching their korans
while the Saudis were lavishing their Bosnian muslims brothers with millions for their spread of islam in europe and financing the construction of hundreds of mosques.
I remember that following that prelude to the big lie in Iraq, 3 consecutive Al Quaeda leaders in Saudi Arabia were Bosnian Holy War vets. The last one coming with his bosnian muslim wife and passport.
I remember taht the only arrest for the Madrid bombing was a morroccan traveling from Bosnia or the dozens muslims arrested after 9/11.
I remember that Wesley Clark, a career weasel who got his position through massive forced retirements telling the world that bombing a smal country the size of New Hamphsire was to terrorize the civilians population and to make their lives miserable and a living hell. I remember thinking how fitting that this definition of war criminal was a democratic contender.
I also remember British General Michael Rose biography where he claims to have refused a direct order by Clarke to attack russian troops in Kosovo and that NATO supported him by not suporting any calls for punishment.
I remember secretary of Hate Madeleine Allbright and her belief that the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqui children would have been worth it had they had been able to capture Saddam.
You of course, chose to forget all these things because it is more convenient.
Are the republicans a**holes? Yes. But the democrats are no better. They just work the PR machine a lot better. And a black candidate is great PR. Will he be different he's black?
That's as stupid as that retarded thinking from a few decades ago that women in power would somehow be more compassionate.
Uncle Tom knows where the wind blows and who pays the bills.
Actually, it's even worse than 'no spark'. It's much worse than the idea that the majority of people supported Bush.
Both in 2004 and 2000, you had almost (within a couple of percentage points of, anyway) a 50-50 split. Which as some have pointed out, that's the sorta results you'd expect if a lot of people didn't really think that either outcome would make any difference. Like, if you had an "election" of "do you want person A or person B to be president of mars?" you'd probably see a similar result.
Rightly or wrongly, it suggests that people don't think that it'd make much difference if Bush or Gore had been elected. I got no love for Bush at all, but I don't think that given 9/11 events, that the patriot act would've been vetoed by Gore or something.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Bush wasn't reelected, Diebold gave him the election. Diebold's CEO even bragged he was going to give Bush Ohio's vote and Bush "won" because of Ohio's results.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber.
Unfortunately the mass media makes out third parties as weirdos or on the fringe. Take Libertarians, most people thing Libertarians will allow corporations to run a muck and do whatever they want. However Libertarians actually hate monopolies, many large corporations got big by government granted monopolies, and would end the limited liability corporations get now.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"Bush wasn't reelected, Diebold gave him the election. Diebold's CEO even bragged he was going to give Bush Ohio's vote and Bush "won" because of Ohio's results."
Diebold's CEO was speaking as a Republican political activist... he clearly meant that he and other party members in Ohio would help deliver the state through activism and campaigning, not through some black conspiracy. He'd be pretty damned stupid to make public statements that he'd conspire to cheat the vote, wouldn't you think? You don't think that if the Democratic National Committee had even a hint of real vote fraud that they wouldn't be fomenting bloody rebellion? Are you kidding me?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel