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...
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
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.
Splenda?
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
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
It would have been more witty to say "and instead of massive loss of life there'd be a massive loss of file"
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Keep in mind, our Democratic Congress apparently doesn't mind rubber-stamping this shit. Even your precious Barack Obama voted for telecom immunity.
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.
What makes you think Obama will be any better? He's already shown us that he thinks national security is more important than the rule of law. But the rule of law is a prerequisite for any kind of security! The fact is, both candidates are part of the authoritarian corporate class.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm not sure it will happen, but can someone mod parent up at least a half point? I'm not sure Obama is much better than our other choices either, and i donated to his campaign!
Now I understand that "we need to win this one" in a sense. However, I received a call from an Obama fund raiser the other day. I listened calmly to what she had to say and answered her questions (loaded for 'yes' of course). I then proceeded to explain to her that Obama voted for the FISA bill which gives the Telcos retroactive immunity after those companies explicitly broke the law and ignored the 4th Amendment. I told her that Obama has either switched directions on his policies or extended them in a nonsensical way and with what seems like little interest for Americans. I told her that I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, and that I hoped she would research who she supports. She seemed a little crestfallen and stuttered, "Well, oh... I'm really sorry to hear that..." and I said goodbye.
When the ideas Obama starts talking about seem to make very little economic sense (he's against Nuclear power, for instance, or that he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve, or that he wants to have another economic stimulus program) then there's something wrong. It quickly starts to sound like a Democratic Dubya, with a blue hand up his ass instead of a red one. Alarm klaxons scream inside my head and it becomes very tough for me to believe the man.
I just don't know what to do. Who am I supposed to vote for? Voting for an independent does little good. Most of them have even less sense than the current candidates. It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that the game is already over and it could require a lot of blood and sacrifice to win back the freedoms we've already lost.
Just my two cents, though.
-
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.
It's really simple - very few people appriciate something they've always had and never had to fight for. I've never had my civil rights violated, I've never feared the government would come and arrest me if they didn't like me. If someone started to blow up people like me, getting the choice between liberty and security (even if that was an either-or) would be a lousy option. I'd like to turn back time to when I was neither restrained or in danger so I can have my cake and eat it too.
The fall to totalitarianism is a slow one, despite a few things pointed out here and there I don't think we're quite in DDR with STASI and Gestapo just yet. Do you really understand what it means to be without your civil liberties if you haven't experienced it? The founding fathers knew what it meant. Those who fought in the american civil war too, but they are long dead and buried. Yes, I know soldiers went and died in WWII and Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and whereever, but the US people hasn't lived with occupation, war or oppression for close to 150 years now.
I don't claim to be a stellar example, I have some second-hand understanding from talking to people that lived through WWII and the nazi occupation. But I think I at least got a glimpse of what it means not to have the rights I take so for granted. Almost the entire bill of rights is about protecting the people from the government. I really do not think people understand what they do when they insist the government protect them from terrorists, which obviously hide among the people. It seems all good sense of why the government was chained in the first place has been thrown overboard.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
In most revolutions the person or group willing and able to exert the most violence will rise to the top. Thus violent revolutions tend to lead to Dictatorships.
Only an extremely few dictators will promptly relinquish their power to the people.
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.
Most of the US people still have the vote (diebold notwithstanding, and for some strange reason many convicted felons don't get to vote).
Given Bush was _reelected_ it is clear to me that the voters do not really object to the policies of the ruling government. Do significant numbers actually vote for some 3rd party in desperation? No.
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. If those votes start to add up, T & T may notice, and so those votes aren't really "thrown away".
Anyone trying to spark a revolution in a somewhat democratic country "for a good cause" is doing the wrong thing.
The terror back then was aimed at you, a person. The terror of today is aimed at high finance and business.
The IRA (together with ETA and Hammas and all the other "old school terrorists") weren't interested in hitting some high profile targets. They just blew up their bombs in trash bins, in (school) busses, in pubs, all places a high profile target (i.e. some rich person) can easily avoid, since the target was the common man. The idea behind terror, you should fear it.
Today's terror has higher aims. There's a reason those planes hit the towers and not some apartment complex. The target was commerce. When a schoolbus explodes, nobody that counts cares. It hits you, your kids, but never him. His kids go to a private school and he has someone drive them there. When his buildings collapse and with them his business, it does hurt him, even if he himself doesn't get hurt, but even that's no longer out of the question since he is the target.
See the difference, and why one is important and the other one isn't?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
No, there is an oppressive price on gasoline not an oppressive tax, atleast not in the United States.
The average state tax on gasoline in the United States was 28.6 cents per gallon in the first quarter of 2008. During the same period the gasoline tax in Germany was 7.6 dollars per gallon and 5.2 dollars per gallon in the United Kingdom.