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.
Until they just indiscriminately block all packets they can't identify. ISP are already itching to do that.
P2P and freedom of speech in one blow, what could be better?
Great Intellect...
Who wrote it ? In which administration ? Curious minds want to know.
It was obvious to me in 2001 that this had been previously prepared, and it astounded me that anyone would fall for this BS.
Unfortunately, history indicates they would probably do it again.
You're probably right. Like old saying goes, locks only keep out the honest people. And the more tyrannical our government becomes, the higher the percentage of criminalized population. Criminalized people can't afford to be honest.
Caveat Utilitor
Good luck with that. As long as the masses can still get to their myspace, facebook and ebay, the majority of people won't care enough to make funding something of that scale possible. Perhaps isolated networks will pop up, build on things like wifi or in dense cities - but the internet as we know it will be dead.
Great Intellect...
Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".
Is this any different? Are there any of us for whom this really *is* the straw that breaks the camel's back?
I just got back from Austria, and I've got to say, it's pretty fsck'ing nice over there.
Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" describes a Linux distro called "Paranoid Linux" which has nice features for this kind of thing. Such as distro is already in the works: http://paranoidlinux.org/
42
Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time.
The fact that people generally tolerate things is at least an indication that a call to revolution is not going to succeed.
I know people who have lived under martial law and genuine oppression. I laugh at Americans who seem to actually believe there is a spirit sufficient to outright spark a revolution.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
> Either every single Supreme Court justice since ever is illiterate
> or they're all evil.
No, four could read "Congress shall make no law..." and understood that McCain Fiengold was clearly infringing. And five managed to parse "shall not be infringed." and rule the DC gun ban out of bounds.
> They just realize the reality of the situation, which is that the
> Bill of Rights is simply wrong in that respect and you need to ignore
> it and get onto more pressing matters.
And now it is clear, we won't be agreeing on much because you serve the forces of darkness. You can't just "ignore" the Bill of Rights and remain a nation of laws. What you pine for is a dictator who will make all of your decisions for you.
And we have the answer to how so many educated Supremes can fail to read the Constituition and not get the right answer. They understand perfectly, but being Socialists they simply don't give a damn what it says.
Note that it IS perfectly acceptable to disagree with the 2nd Amendment, private possession of arms, etc. and still be an American. But you can only do so by first proposing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the Founding Fathers were very wise men, but they were not God Kings handing down the law on graven tablets, thus they realized that their laws might need to be adjusted for differing times, and the procedure for Amendments. Done that way it doesn't turn us into a nation of men instead of laws.
Of course you will repeal the 2nd Amendment only after I have fought you to my last breath and last dollar.
Democrat delenda est
Even if you're one of those Fox News wingnuts who just hates the idea of a black man being president,
Would those be the same wingnuts that wanted Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell to run?
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
This seems to be overly-cynical. People aren't bad at adopting new things, they just need a motivator:
Wow, the things Microsoft have taught me. Thanks Bill! Anyway, getting back to the point, the biggest risk to an improved network, is that legislation may be created to stop it being used. Most people are willing to bend the law a little, but not break it.
Incidentally, who was the bloke speaking after Lessig? He had some very good points about how the Internet on mobiles isn't taking off because of the huge fees carriers are demanding, and the assumption by venture capitalists that the Internet 'just works' by itself. Very insightful comments from him.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
The problem is intellectuals (defined as "people who think they can do better", or, only partly joking people who think "if everybody did what I say there would be world peace"). We both know slashdot is rife with them.
They have the big problem that Joe Schmoe cares for exactly what you'd think he cares for : his ability to drive his/her car as far as he wants. Food, luxurious food, a big house, toys, children ... and that's it. (Or as Barack O states they care for "guns and religion", which is not true, they care for getting their ass comfortable, guns and religion simply help too much to give up)
So a democracy will always be in favor of increased private spending, and increased energy usage, which today means "more co2 release". Which is the very antithesis of most "progressive" (socialist/communist) policies. Let's not forget that it's "progressives" (albeit not American ones, though it did include many European ones) that engineered the USSR famines, and for example China's one child policy is also of progressive making (the Nazi's, also socialists, had similar measures).
This is NOT to say that they're nazi or communist, but it is beyond obvious when listening to Barack O. or Al Gore that what they really want to do is massive, involuntary social re-engineering (whether it's energy usage, "tolerance" as defined by giving money to the day's "popular victims", or "genetic purity" (which was big in socialist circles between 1920 and, well 1960-70, google for "eugenics movement"), they want to re-engineer the whole of society to fit their image of an ideal society). These people are also responsible for the current Iranian government AND for the ascent of power of people like Saddam Hussein (and they were in favor of them on many occasions, why ? Because of their political leanings. Those little details of genocides like the halabja campaign of Iraq, or the recently "impossible to locate anywhere" marsh arabs of Iran, are but pesky problems that can be ignored for the "greater purpose")
The problem is beyond obvious : they expect economical sacrifices of Joe Schmoe, which they will never get from him/her voluntary.
So without violence, the ultimate, massively irrefutable argument, their policies won't be implemented. However they are intellectuals : in an open fight ... they lose (and lose big, as cannot be illustrated more thoroughly by the events in Iran in 1972. First progressives overthrew the government. Next the government started executing gays. Something must have gone wrong. It's easy to find out what exactly went wrong : the terrorism of khomeini).
It should be obvious to even the 5 year old daughter of Obama that the energy reductions necessary to reduce carbon output will NEVER be implemented voluntary. The other idea of the green movement, "limiting population", you can guess how much enthousiasm people will have for that one. Some of the greens, by the way, are discussing genocide in order to implement this, though fortunately it's the lunatic fringe for the moment.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
But the solutions of the socialists (and the greens these days) are utter disasters for the common man.
Reducing co2 output is painful. VERY painful. It will never really happen in a democracy. And before you state that Europe proves otherwise, I'd like you to check 2 little details : ... or not ? (the commission is the lawgiving instrument of the EU, not the parliament, as you might think. Again, google this) ...
-> who has the power in the EU ? Does the composition of that body make the EU democratic
-> exactly how many coal fired power plants are being constructed in the EU ? Zero right ? Oh wait