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
Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
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.
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
Pay per packet plus lower ping times for people with the "Clear" pass.
rewriting history since 2109
"Inform all the troops that communications have completely broken down."
"Piter, too, is dead."
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.
Until the US government demand ISPs start blocking all encrypted traffic that doesn't have an SSL certificate provided by 'authorised' suppliers.
Remember that to stop someone doing something, non-essential: not eating or breathing, you just need to make it hard enough to be not worth their while. An example of this is the Chinese firewall, people know the government are watching, so they don't bother looking at anything that isn't authorised. In this case, if nerds start demanding everyone encrypt everything, they'll be ignored. Who can be arsed to purchase an SSL certificate, just to run a small Web site, or IM their friends?
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.
All sufficiently long forum threads about a policy where the US government might become involved shall include at least one reference to 9/11 and/or Al Qaida.
hey everybody...
If I ignore this issue will it just go away? I am a typical American insensitive clod, so I was hoping I could use my usual tactics on this one...
excuse me, I hafta go watch some baseball.
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
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
2009 - e-9/11 hits
2010 - i-Patriot Act becomes law
2013 - Internet as we know it effectively dead
2014 - High speed satellite provider launches overseas in developed, unfriendly nation (China?)
2015 - US shoots down privately owned foreign satellites??
There are plenty of places out in the country that does well with little internet. Only major cities that depend on external systems and greedy business people will be impacted.
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.
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
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.
If Congressmen start getting theirs, and their kids' laptops and iPods searched at the border for copyright violations, and summarily sued... or maybe to expedite this, a hacker illegally breaks into their systems and posts proof of their hypocrisy to the world.
I am not condoning the second method, however, and do not have anything resembling the skill to do so. (Please don't arrest me Republican Overlords!)
Team Terrorists - FINAL SCORE: Massive DNS Meltdown ****Bonus Round**** i-Patriot Act
to (re)move the control of each piece of the Internet and each organization that manages Internet assignment and standards - and move them away from being controlled by any sovereign state (government), USA or other
comments like his underscore such hubris, ... to imagine that any single government could control or even direct the totality of human connection and communication
even worse, and more to the point for Clark and his ilk: such stupidity to think that under the fear-driven false guise of "protecting us" those charged specifically to support and defend the Constitution would restrict the actions and freedoms of the very people from which all their power derives. I'd like believe that accountability will come back into favor in '09
such a cyber9-11 would be most interesting if it happened and restricted the Internet because it would directly affect the one right left to USians that will (could) get them out of the hole of degrading personal rights they continue to slide into: assembly
Having a contingency plan in case of emergency is not only smart, but required by law in many areas. There are plans for many emergencies like an earthquake, fire, hurricane, building evacuation, chemical spill, conventional war, cyber war, hijacked plane, running out of coffee, etc. Just because Lessig has legitimate concerns about any particular act, does not mean the Illuminati is just waiting around for the right moment to spring their Global World Domination Plan (tm).
For instance, plans for invading Iraq were required of the Pentagon after Clinton reviewed the investigation report of the 1st World Trade Center bombing back in the early 90s. Bush was still just a governor at the time, but 'popular' history will remember it as his idea. Idiocracy anyone.
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?
Alex Jones has reported on this as well. As we all know, 9/11 was a "turn" for the worse in society. Another fake, "global" war to get the yuppies to submit to power, government lies, and propaganda. 9/11 was a false flag event, the same as the Gulf of Tonkin, which is now declassified, and has come out that Israel actually attacked the carrier.
What you will see, I would imagine is a false flag event, pulled off by those who are capable, and well paid, bring down the root servers. This has been demonstrated in the past, and is VERY possible, especially considering the recent DNS flaws that have spewed out in the media. They will come out, and say "Oh, we need Internet 2", and it will be totally censored. No porn. No free speech. And if you talk about a candidate, other than the 2 government run parties that are exactly the same, then you get unplugged. If you log on, without your DNA being uploaded, then they swat team you, and kill your family.
The way that criminal governments work, is problem, reaction, solution. They create a problem, judge the reaction, then pose as the saviors. Usually, they come up with a solution that will piss off a lot of people, and they do it to diminish freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion... the list goes on, and on. One day, just one day, you will be sitting there, wondering where all of your freedom went, while you are a slave on a global corporate plantation.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753
Endgame:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
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.
I was at the UofC when Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar there. There are only a handful of people in this country who know the Constitution better than he does (read his articles from the Law Review). And from what I hear, he's a lover of freedom and a true believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Can you show me where the USA Constitution authorizes Obama's health care plan?
Plus, having a young black president will make the jackoff racists' heads explode, which will make for some great entertainment for the next 4/8 years.
Agreed, but it doesn't require Obama. Before he stood up in front of the UN Security Council and said Saddam had all those WMDs, which I'm still waiting to see, I would have supported Colon Powell as president.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Bill Clinton, he wanted congress to pass the Comprehensive Anti-terrorism Act of 1995 which would have given him many of the powers the PATRIOT Act gave Bush.
Should there be a Law?
Will we have an October Surprise to make sure that the Heroic Global War on Terror continues for years to come?
Unless the "cyber 9/11" ends up being corruption of some mission critical system, such as air traffic control, a power plant, a mass-transit system or some such that leads to hundreds to thousands of deaths/injuries.
It's not total BS...
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
It was only this year that international tourists to the US were at the levels seen before 9111, from the AP: "The number of international tourists visiting America should exceed pre-Sept. 11 levels this year for the first time since terrorist attacks crippled the travel industry, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said Friday." Notice it says "should" not does or did. Elsewhere: "Tourists skipping US sites", dated 5 July 2008 and "U.S. share of foreign tourists slipping, travel experts say" dated one day later.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that in the event of a Cyber Terrorist attack, terrible things can happen.
But I view the two events differently.
Where one event you have a building taken down by a plane controlled by a terrorist...
The second...loss of contact with ground control. But don't you think they have some kind of protocol dealing with this? While no one dies immediatly from this attack, this still leaves control in the hands of the captain.
I just don't see how something occurring over the internet could amount to the actual death and destruction caused by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Ok, enough is enough. No big brother will never get a hold of the net FAR too many of the necessary high end IT staff needed to maintain their equipment and networks will revolt for teh love of god I know One in chicago that controls about 40% of the traffic for the midwest would hijack his own network to prevent that shit. I SAY "FUCKING BRING IT ON BITCHES!". We of the tech industry FUCKING control this country and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IF I CAN'T TORRENT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO FUCKING GET KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS, GANG RAPED, GIVEN A SEX CHANGE, GANG RAPED AGAIN, PUT THE FUCKING LOTION IN THE BASKET OR IT GETS THE FUCKING HOSE AGAIN, SO GOING TO DANCE AROUND NAKED WEARING THEIR LOVED ONES SKIN WHILE I RAPED THEIR MOTHER, FATHER, DAUGHTER ,BROTHER ,SISTER ,DOG, HOUSE PLANTS IN FRONT OF THEM WHILE PLAYING NEIL DIAMOND. so by far the greatest threat any organization has on the internet is from thoe of us who allow lusers the privilege to use it everyday. just ask Amy Banse, I bet her mouth still bleeds when she goes poop.
The Iraq war is the best possible scenario for religious fundamentalists. The have pictures of dead Muslims to pass around, an excellent environment for cultivating new psychopaths, and a good place to train them. The orphaned children alone represent tens of thousands of new possible recruits.
You're spouting the same nonsense that kept us in the Vietnam War, only this time we're actually going to lose some valuable resources if we are forced to leave Iraq. But don't worry your pretty little head. We have four permanent military installations that we will only abandon after our currency finally crashes from our national deficit and staggering military spending. The democracy we're pretending to support in Iraq is just like the one we helped the British with in Iran back in the 50s. And we all know how well that turned out.
As soon as the $300 checks sent out to the Sunni mercenaries who have switched tactics for the moment cease to arrive, the "pre-surge" violence levels will return overnight. To quote one Shia resident, the terrorists have become the police, but for how long? Peace in Iraq is extraordinarily expensive, and soon we won't be able to afford it.
Some folks can't learn lessons from history. I just hope the rest of the western world learns that destroying Arab secular nationalism always leads to the formation of religious fundamentalist groups. The PLO became Hamas, Lebanese turned to Hezbollah, the Afghanis turned to the Taleban, and the Iraqis have turned to al Qaeda. They don't just roll over and die, and in fact Hezbollah are the first military organization to have defeated the Israelis in a ground assault. If they had any comparable equipment, you'd see a different attitude towards Lebanon, just as the nuclear armed North Koreans got diplomacy instead of bayonets. It has made it clear to the rest of the world that we will leave you alone if you have a nuclear arsenal.
If you think that the arabs are to blame for the conditions that allow terrorism to become acceptable to their culture, your history books must be pretty thin and biased.
The reference isn't so much to the damage that was done on 9/11 but the change in mindset it caused.
After 9/11 happened, people were paranoid about terrorists everywhere even though the actual threat of terrorism hadn't changed. Yes it was horrible, but the aftermath has been even worse. More people have lost their lives due to the war in Iraq than due the terrorist attacks.
The problem is that people act irrational when they get afraid - something which the government isn't afraid to abuse to get laws like the patriot act passed. That is what the reference is suppose to mean.
> On the real 9/11 thousands of innocent people lost their lives.
So? Not trying to make light of the losses on 9/11 but the loss of life was not the major damage on that day. We got lucky, the loss of life could indeed have been much worse. But the damage to the morale and economic power of the US was almost incalculable. Had AQ been able to follow up with one or two similar attacks in the following months they just might have brought down the entirety of Western Civilization.
There is the potential to carry out attacks of similar impact via the Internet entirely and/or use the Internet as a major component of a physical attack.
It is the responsibility of some people to think about such things, plan for them and work on reducing the likelihood of such attacks. Those people don't sleep well with the current security state of the Internet.
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?
but havent there been congressmen and other officials who have been held up by airport security and such? Christ, I want to say Ted Kennedy was one of them but Im too lazy to fact-check so....wasnt Ted Kennedy one of them? ;)
Yes, Ted Kennedy was stopped from boarding planes several tymes because his name was on the Do Not Fly lists. So was Cat Stevens.
Falcon
For those who don't know, Cat Steves was a popular singer song writer in the 1960s and '70s.
Should there be a Law?
Remember that to stop someone doing something, non-essential: not eating or breathing, you just need to make it hard enough to be not worth their while. An example of this is the Chinese firewall, people know the government are watching, so they don't bother looking at anything that isn't authorised.
Except Chinese are able to get around the Great Firewall of China. Chinese do find ways.
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
The jingle in the pocket doesn't make the boot stamping on a face forever any more palatable.
i just had to bookmark this comment.
Read radical news here
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.........
Look at this thread again, then.
Pwning the water treatment facilities in a major city could easily lead to that amount. They might die more slowly, but...
If I wanted to screw up the airports, I wouldn't crash the air traffic control system. I would just give incorrect info to the air traffic controller (who is only looking at electronic instruments, generally) causing two big jumbos to collide. Then erase my tracks. Then do it at another airport. And another.
Or set it up so they all happen more or less simultaneously. Sure, some percentage will be lucky and miss crashing for a number of different reasons. 100 airports. 25% success rate of the 'sploits. 25% human error recovery suceeeds. Well, that's maybe 20 jumbo jets colliding all over the country. At a low estimate of 200 per plane, it's "only" 4000.
Any power plants online?
Hm, what about hydro facilities? I hear that those living below the big dams might not like it very much if all the water were released at once. Are there any dams near communities? Probably the max flow the dam could support would allow them to get out. And then the water shortage would kick in quite hard, I would suspect.
Do you think someone could trigger another Bhopal from the inside of a plant? Well, then consider that many plants these days are connected to the net.
A bit more complex along those lines:
Knowing where our goods come from could lead one to consider that as an avenue of attack. China would make an excellent intermediary. Perhaps instead of directly buying off a plant in China for some alteration to a random set of goods being shipped to the US for use you could control their manufacturing remotely. I wonder if in the former case they would take your money and then turn you over or not.
(for the oblig. joke: and how could you tell that from what we already get? *rimshot*, thank you i'll be here all week!)
I suppose you could use US companies to do this too.
They each pose a different set of challenges, technologically and socially. But I digress!
Summary: It is possible to come up with scenarios where "cybercrime" directly affects the real world. At this stage of our existence (scarily) we have ways to actually crack* someone to death, or lots of someones. Kind of random for the other people involved, though - were you there, or not?
What generally scares me is a perfect storm scenario. You get all the pieces in place. Wait for a major disaster and slowly degrade the state of the nation through a series of cascading failures that no one has time to analyze because it's all occurring naturally until realization is too late.
These are all well known, and there are many, many more. Really. It's like science fiction these days, in some sense - the modern world as dystopic sci-fi. You, you self can probably think of ten more if you think of it in any of the same terms as people who do it as a profession (either artistically, like a writer, or like any number of different practical based specialties required to build such a plan - just like software).
*please note connotation, kthksbye
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.
Do we really want to allow Microsoft to become OCP? I'm all for smaller government, but the whole "free markets solve everything" thing seems incredibly naive to me.
If Libertarians were in charge, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten as big and powerful as they have. Libertarians hate monopolies. But there's Democrats and others to blame for the fear mongering, FUD.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
...that someone who has worked at the White House over the age of 30 actually knows who Vint Cerf is?
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
I've seen him on some of the Sunday morning news shows...and I gotta say, I am quite impressed with him now....I wish to hell he could get included on the 3 'presidential debates'....he can speak quite well, and I'd love to see him actually throw answers out there in the middle of the main parties candidates who love to say nothing so far.
I doubt Barr, or any other presidential candidate, will be invited to participate in many debates McCain and Obama have. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were both arrested for trying to enter a debate in 2004. Yet not many people know that because the mass media didn't do their job and let people know.
I think Barr would actually make a good showing, and possibly even force the other two candidates to take some positions, or look like idiots afraid to answer a question...
That's why third party candidates aren't invited. But if the mass media did it's job, of informing people, more people would demand they be allowed to debate.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You're being a little naive there... I'm sure most if not all of the nuclear power plants in the US are connected to the net, I'm 100% confident that operation of those plants is handled by computers.
Manage to hack into a couple of those, and, I dunno... turn off the cooling pumps. Bye Bye! to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention years of cleanup, high disease rates, etc.
Sure they have fail safes, and maybe it wouldn't work, but even the threat of that, if a power company came out and said "we had to perform an emergency shutdown of the reactor because XYZ terrorist group hacked in and shut down the cooling systems", even if no one was hurt or actually died, the threat alone would be enough to get Joe Public to outlaw the internet, or in some other way seriously degrade the network, and the Gov't would be all too willing to go along.
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".
Just wait for the singularity and these stupid government monkeys won't be able to keep up with the rapid change in tech
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?
Um..no. Any fatalities would be limited to those working inside the plant and would be primarily of radiation poisoning. A "cyber-terrorism" event that affected the US economically, if large enough, could create a situation where recession leads to poverty which leads to riots or crime or hunger. But no, even if a "hacker" got into the control systems of a nuclear plant the worst case scenario (assuming everyone's incompetent) is the shutdown of that plant.
I think you're on target.
It's not about people. It's about businesses. It's about BIG businesses, the kinds that can contribute large sums of money to political candidates. They're not interested in the little Chinese restaurant in the town where I live. They're not interested in the local Chiropractor's office. They're only interested in significant contributors ... not significant contributors to society, but significant contributors to their campaign funds.
This country is going down hill far too rapidly. How do I get off of this ride before it crashes?
is there a transcript of the conversation available?
"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
"the threat alone would be enough to get the Gov't to outlaw the internet, or in some other way seriously degrade the network, and Joe Public would be all too willing to go along." there...fixed that for you..
"pure" Libertarian principles
Even Libertarians can't agree on pure principles. Which flavor are you referring to? Everybody from anarchists to anarchocapitalists to minarchists to Hollywood conservatives are calling themselves Libertarians.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
Only a very small minority is. The trick is figuring out how to undo Marbury vs. Madison, Santa Clara, and the Seventeenth Amendment to get back to a semblance of a Republic when those constructs have created a nasty positive-feedback loop that's disassembling what's left of the Republic. Many people give up and turn to violence. That should be the last resort, and the others aren't nearly exhausted, but for some it's 'easy' to go there.
If you're in Oklahoma get on the horn to your State Senator so that state can put its foot down. Other states like New Hampshire have its foot down Constitutionally, but lack political will to stand on that foot. But if people who care about such things don't do anything, then nothing will happen. GOTO 1.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The fact is, both candidates are part of the authoritarian corporate class.
McCain is an authoritarian, but he's not corporate:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Wow, thats not how things are around here. My stats seem to indicate that most Wiccans are 14 to 16 year old girls. Their percentage body fat varies pretty much around the norm. Some of them are very *hot*, but totally jailbait. By the time they are of age, most are no longer Wiccan.
During a group panel segment titled "2018: Life on the Net", Lessig stated:
There's going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn't necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You've got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.
Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said "of course there is".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Fantastic!
Try to remember
The endless Septembers
When Cheney and Rumsfeld
Gagged us with their members
Try to remember
The days of September
Now, swallow!
Swallow, swallow, swallow...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Agreeing or not, I was able to mostly follow along with your reasoning until I got to this baffling tidbit:
Whah? You've *completely* lost me. Iran went nuts the way it did in large part due to corporate money-grubbing. Look up what happened when the *popularly and democratically elected Iranian prime minister*, who happened to be notably pro-US and stolidly secular, decided with popular backing that British Petroleum was abusing its position in Iran and worked to control the nation's own resources. I'll give you a hint -- there was this guy called Shah Pahlavi who was whisked into power with enormous backing from the US (and, incidentally, BP), in a coup d'état staged with covert CIA and MI6 teams. Not very progressive nor socialist, really. Yes, I fully understand that the Shah is no longer in power, but we must recognize that Iran would be a very different place if not for direct covert US and UK intervention, and furthermore, any analysis of the current clerical regime in Iran *must* look at where it came from, and what it was reacting against.
Now for Saddam Hussein. Let's just quote Wikipedia here:
Hmm, more international skullduggery backed by the CIA. I don't know about all /. readers here, but my general impression is that the CIA is not widely known for its progressive or socialist leanings...
Please correct me if I'm wrong in my reading of your text -- it's entirely possible that by "these people" you didn't actually mean progressives and socialists, although I must say that's what it sounds like after reading your post through again. I agree with a number of your points, but then again some of them seem to come in from outside the ballpark altogether.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I don't know why you got moded "flamebait" your point about externalities being offloaded onto the public is 100% right. The U.S. model equals privatize profits, socialite costs, which is it's own unacknowledged form of socialism that benefits a very few corporate owners and large stock holders.
The true health and environmental cost of gasoline is FAR more than 4/gallon, a cost being paid neither by oil producers, nor the direct cosumer at the pump, but rather society through higher health insurance rates, etc.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Thousands of people lose their lives every day, just from driving cars. In the long view, loss of life isn't what made 9/11 a big deal. Changing how people act is; the bad guys got us to pass wacky laws that are still around many years later, for example. That's why we call it "terrorism" instead of "murder." Murder is just the means. Policy change is the end, and cynics(?) might say that self-destructive policy change is the end.
As more people get on the 'net and run insecure systems, the possibility keeps increasing that you can achieve similar goals, and without directly killing anyone. If millions of people's and business' machines erase themselves on a single day, that's enough to get politicians into "we have to do something" mode. And by now I think we all know that when politicians are in that mode, they can do unusually stupid and destructive things.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, REAL libertarians don't believe in corporations. Corporate structures isolate people from responsibility, which of course creates situations where "domination" occurs.
Libertarians believe in individual/partnership ownership, with joint and several liability for wrongs performed.
Okay, I've heard of an income tax that's the same percentage for all income levels instead of being progressive as being called a "fair tax".
Second, I was aware of the history of the name changes and the case, I was making a joke when I said "whatever it's called this week."
I wasn't aware of any name change but while checking the name I did come across the case, or a related one, as being called after Gonzalez.
Third, it's not me that argues the commerce clauses gives them that ability, it was the majority of SCOTUS that did
You also said it was idiot to disagree with the ruling, yet 3 of the Justices did disagree.
I happen to agree that the commerce clause *ought* to be interpreted broadly.
Reading papers left by some of the Founding Fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison come to mind, the Constitution is to be taken quite narrowly in meaning, both were for limited government but a broad interpretation gives government any power it wants. And Madison was a principle writer of the Constitution. I happen to agree with them, as I say above it not interpreting it narrowly gives the government any power it wants. So, what powers the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government it does not have to power to do. That's why a way to amend the Constitution was written into it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
They also probably didn't consider him a threat.
Yea, that's probably true.
After he got 20% of the vote, the Big Two are a lot less likely to let a 3rd party get anywhere near them in a debate.
They won't let in third party candidates now. In 2004 both Michael Badnarik and the Green Party candidate, I don't recall his name now, were arrested when they tried to get into a debate.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
history has shown me what happens when we just leave it to charities.
History has also shown people what happens when everything is left to government. Let's see, between 1930 and 1950 or so some 70.6 million people were killed by government. The NAZI's killed more than 600,000, Stalin 20 million, and Mao some 50 million. History shows governments are the largest terrorists there are. I don't recall now but how many did Pol Pot kill? How many were killed in Rwanda? And though it's died down in the Sudan, how many have been killed there? Between the invasion of East Timor in 1975 and it's independence in 1999 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 the population, were massacred.
On the the other hand, I've researched Barr a bit more and like him more than I did.
I absolutely hated Barr's positions in the early 1990s.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Wow, thats not how things are around here. My stats seem to indicate that most Wiccans are 14 to 16 year old girls.
I don't recall any Wiccans I knew who weren't at least 20, except for children of Wiccans, though some were middle aged or older. The same applies to Kabalists, though I only met a few.
Their percentage body fat varies pretty much around the norm.
In appearance and intelligence I didn't see much of a difference between Wiccans and the general population. Which kind of surprises me because with Wiccans believing their body was a temple in a sense I'd think they'd have healthier life styles than the general population.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Since corporations are inherently more powerful than individuals, and utterly amoral on top of that, they need to be kept in tight leash.
Probably the single biggest reason corporations are so powerful is because they give stockholders limited liability. However, in general, Libertarians would end that limited liability. Personally I probably wouldn't so far as to totally eliminate it, because of the limit on liability a corporation can take more risks than individuals can. This is why corporations were granted charters to begin with. The first two charters granted to corporations were given to the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. Both were shipping companies facilitating trade between Great Britain and the Netherlands and India respectively. Shipping was a financially risky business, ships could be attacked by pirates or be sunk by bad weather. If a shop was lost the ship owner was financially liable, for both the cargo and for the lives of the crew. No matter how wealthy an owner was they could lose everything, even their home. So charters were granted to corporations to limit the liability of stockholders, the most a stockholder could lose was the money they invested in the corporation. With this limit more people were willing to invest in shipping which boosted trade and benefited a lot of people.
However what is overlooked today was that a corporation had to serve the common, or public, good. If a corporation did not do so it could have it's corporate charter Revoked.
While this sound fine on the surface, it would make investing an unacceptably high risk activity for anyone who can't watch the company full-time.
Actually it shouldn't take that much tyme or effort, no more than people should take anyway. Stockholders should hold the corporation accountable. They need to read any and all proxies they get and make sure they understand them. They can support shareholder resolutions. They need to be Activist Shareholders. If that's too much work, then they can invest in Socially responsible investing, SRI, mutual funds. Anyway, those who are active in their investments and oppose something the corporation does that causes harm or supports responsible and sustainable activities shouldn't lose their limited liability. Also corporate executives should be held responsible as well. Other than the captain not one person was held responsible the Exxon Valdez nor was anyone held accountable for the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.
The core libertarian principle of removing government control would allow powerful entities to get away with whatever they want, because with government power gone, who's going to stop them ?
Government control is not the same as the control a court can wield. I have not heard of one Libertarian who wants a weak justice system. Actually I bet many would prefer to make it easier for people to sue corporations. Then if it is found it is not serving the public good then it's charter can be revoked.
Libertarianism would lead to the return of feudalism, which was, after all, rule by those who owned the land and could thus afford to hire armies to enforce their will,
I suggest you research the economics of slavery. The economics of slavery was unsustainable. It cost more to hire and keep an army than it costs to pay freemen a living wage. It was Libertarians, then called Liberals as in
Should there be a Law?
The Kaminsky DNS protocol issue may be the best candidate so far for the "Cyber 9/11."
IF it is as serious as the hype makes it sound (probable),
AND if it is widely exploited, causing major disruptions to Internet commerce (too soon to tell),
AND if the IETF, other standards bodies, and DNS implementers are unable to respond with effective mitigations in the protocol (seems likely given their current bickering over DNSSEC),
THEN we can expect to see some sort of major initiative to "secure the web" and impose technical solutions by legislation. Then the U.S. will go one way, the Chinese another, and the rest of the Internet will fragment into balkanized confusion.
Or the whole thing could just go away, like Y2K, and we will all wait for the next bullet.
The Dems in congress tried hard to pass a version without telecomm immunity. They proposed amendments to that effects. However, Bush has threatened to veto such versions. Thus, some of them chose to vote for the flawed law to avoid being painted as 'helping terrorists!'
You could accused those as being cowardly. But you cannot call them rubber stamps like many of the GOPers this past 8 years.
Don't just look at single trees.
Don't just look at nuclear power, look at policy toward ALL source of energies.
"Obama's overall plan calls for a $150 billion investment in solar and wind power, $1,000 tax credits to consumers buying hybrids and $4 billion in incentives for Detroit to produce more energy-efficient cars. The goal is to wean the U.S. off foreign oil within 10years." NY Dialy News. 8-4-08
McCann has a more modest plan focused around traditional sources including nuclear energy.
His idiotic drone, "We have to drill here and drill now," is pandering of the first order. Nevertheless, the relevant question should be, "Will we be a better positions 10 years from now if we follow Obama's plan or McCann's?"
Do not assume Obama is some sort of saint. He is a politician who will compromise individual points in order to implement his broad programs. He is also very intelligent, so do not judge him by the soundbyte messages. Study the nuances of his plans.
For McCann, don't just listen to what the press says, look at what he's voted for and worked for.
Look at each one in totality and estimate who will provide a leadership that you believe will be best for the US and the world 4-20 years down the road. (remember that more Supreme Court appointments may come up this next 4 year)