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
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Your implication that Obama is ignorant of constitutional law is without merit.
The merit is based on there being no constitutional authority yet he's pushing for a national health care system. Some may argue, as you do, the interstate commerce clause may give the authority to the federal government. What those people don't say is that the constitution puts a limit on the power of government, it enumerates what powers the government has, and bars it from doing anything else. One it does not give the power for is national health care. The 10th Amendment specifically states that what powers are not granted are reserved for the states and individuals. If the federal government wants that power it also says how it can gain that power, by amending the Constitution. Unfortunately while amendments were originally used to guaranty right, the First 10 Amendments being the Bill of Rights, now they are used to expand the power of government.
As for Gonzales v. Raich (or whatever it's called this week) I was frankly hoping the controlled substances act would be overturned, but I think the decision, legally, was the correct one.
Originally it was Raich v. Ashcroft, Ashcroft being the Attorney General then. The vote itself was a 6 to 3 vote, the descending justices were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, O-Conner and Rehnquist being nominated by Reagan and Thomas was nominated by Bush Sr. The descending opinions weren't very flattering of the majority decision.
>Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
My bad statement, I realized that after posting. I should of used better wording, such as saying I thought that because I thought calling being disagreed with idiots was being idiot itself.
I don't think the income tax system is good and personally would prefer the fairtax system
I heard a number of "fair tax" systems, but I don't consider a tax on people's income to be fair at all. People shouldn't be made to pay tax on what they earn. The closest I come to agreeing with national taxes is on fuel, to pay for highways only, and a sales tax on nonessential items. However if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution there wouldn't need to be a sales tax.
but if you think it isn't constitutional, then yes, to me that's the thinking of an idiot. There's very clear rulings on this.
So O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas are idiots?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
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?
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?
"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
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..."
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?