Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gives Feds "Emergency" Powers To Secure Civilian Nets
ziani writes "Joe Lieberman wants to give the federal government the power to take over civilian networks' security if there's an 'imminent cyber threat.' From the article: 'Lieberman and Collins' solution is one of the more far-reaching proposals. In the Senators' draft bill, "the President may issue a declaration of an imminent cyber threat to covered critical infrastructure." Once such a declaration is made, the director of a DHS National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications is supposed to "develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure."'"
First off it's private property, and private property rights are covered in the Constitution.
Obama can have my root passwords only from my cold, dead, brain.
Corporatism != Free Market
I think someone has read too many cyberpunk novels.
I think this senator (John Lieberman) don't have any idea about the computational impact of this bill (almost impossible). As the majority of the politicans, he's making laws to raise credibility over the non tech people.
Strange name for a bill thats made for limiting and controlling the flow of information in case of, well just about anything. War on drugs, immigrants, terrorists, citizens?
If there was any real concern about cyber security, Windows would be outright banned on the spot.
HTTP/1.1 400
If this passes. (and it will, in some form) I bet we will have a 'threat' within 5 years.
And they just won't give back control of the net.
Hope i'm wrong. but... that doesn't happen often.
And how long before "imminent cyberthreat" is software piracy, child pornography, or any number of other crimes du jour? Thanks but no thanks - we'll take care of our own tubes.
Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
Kill the internet before independent media exposes the banking cartels for the criminals that they are.
How do you know they can't already do it? Have you fully audited the entire software and hardware stacks of any routers you're using? Are you only using OpenBSD?
Worse, are you using any networking hardware manufactured in, say, China, which may have been modified prior to manufacture?
Right, because the Federal Government knows better how to secure a network than private industry.
You need to unplug your modem and your network cable. Please place them both on a bin and send them down the belt. Please DO NOT place any items on top of the modem. Place all other items in a separate bin.
Some days I wish we could just dissolve the DHS. Remember when it just meant department of human services? Those were the good old days.
-Xen
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
its the same argument used by those who stand against gay's right to marry: "if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying sheep! polygamy will be legal too!" bullshit. people understand that homosexual marriage is not bestiality or multiple wives
or howabout: "if they legalize marijuana they will legalize meth and heroin too!" no. meth is not marijuana. heroin is not marijuana. everyone understands the radical differences between these drugs
if you can understand that those who use the bullshit tactic of the slippery slope against gay marriage or marijuana legalization are trafficking in fear and hysteria, then maybe you can see that in your own words, is the exact same fear and hysteria
so, just so you clearly understand... no: a cyberattack is not piracy. a cyberattack is not pedophilia. common sense attempts to secure a network is not going to be confused with efforts against piracy. or pedophilia
really. we all understand the difference. really
people, please: shut up with the bullshit slippery slope arguments. whenever you find yourself arguing in terms of the slippery slope, you have lost your grasp on rationality and reason and are simply fearful, hysterical, and confused. there is no such thing as a slippery slope. repeat: there is no such thing as a slippery slope
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But somehow, at some point in time, the US Government will cross the line into controlling the internet just as much as any dictatorship would. (see China)
The only question is whether they will do it gradually enough for the people to notice, or not.
It's called cutting the power at power stations that control the power to the internet providers.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
So they'll hack into my systems in order to make my systems secure? Next, will they break into my car to make my car more secure? Will they abduct my kids to guarantee they're secure? Who voted for these people? Oh, it's the people who didn't vote:
"Bad politicians are elected by good people
who don't vote" (anonymous Irish election poster showing George W.)
no, I don't have a sig
Who is Bill, and how can he give this kind of power to the Feds?
The ironic part is that even if the bill passes, is signed, and the law eventually invoked, it will be "the feds" riding to the rescue of the net. Yeah, right.
Look, I'm am no "all government intervention is bad" arm flapper. Far from it, but I'm sorry. There are clearly better hands for this task. They're running the net every day and repelling attacks every day. So what "threat", pray tell, would be so dire that only ham-fisted government cowboys could save us?
Putting the power of net into the hands of the fed creates a conflict of interests. The fed is highly political and all solutions from the fed are political by nature. Decisions over the "security" of the net will be made based on political agenda and public perception. At least private industry has a vested interest in protecting their resources.
If I were Verizon or Comcast and the fed took over the responsibility for security of my network, I would stop investing in protecting my resources and let the fed take the fall for any breaches. "I know it would have been prudent to put in anti hacking measures in my routers, but hey that's the feds role."
I thought Joe Lieberman was a political opportunist when he was running under the Democratic ticket. He has proven his political motivations time and time again. I don't think he is a very forward thinking individual. I wish he would stay out of these issues.
I thought network security was reason behind the funding of CERT in the 1990s. What ever happened to that effort. Oh yeah, the Internet provides became better at security then the CERT folks.
Doh.
so... during cyber attack all US citizens will be forced to format their windows malware laden hard drives and install Linux and gun point, this is a great idea!
Umm, excuse me Government there is a secret I think you should know:
If your 'Critical infrastructure' is connected to a PUBLICLY accessible Internet, then you are doing something wrong.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
ts the same argument used by those who stand against gay's right to marry: "if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying sheep! polygamy will be legal too!" bullshit. people understand that homosexual marriage is not bestiality or multiple wives
I had no problem with folks wanting to marry a sheep, cat, goat, or whatever - what they do behind closed doesn't affect me or my liberties.
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
It's no the people in the room I'm concerned about. It's the people making policy.
Border patrol. They are there to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and protect the borders from invaders, but yet, they're searching citizen's laptops for child porn. What has child porn have to do with securing our borders? Or drugs for that matter. A citizen sniffing a line of coke won't jeopardize our security or our freedom, but yet, the increased powers of the border guards has limited some of our freedom - Fourth Amendment.
Gun laws are on this continuous pendulum of restriction and liberation but the net effect over time has been more restrictions on law abiding citizens and our Second Amendment right is withering away . In the meantime, the criminals are shooting away without restriction.
Tax laws - IRS - the Mother of all slipper slopes. The income tax was put in place to pay for a war that has long been over and paid off and yet, the laws become ever more complex and violate our rights more every year.
No. The slippery slope argument exists because it's true. Sure there is a bit a hyperbole occasionally but it doesn't make it not true.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Guys, they just want the Sudetenland. That's it. Just one little strip of land. Just sign the Munich Agreement and quit disagreeing, you alarmist jackasses. Hell, they even promised they'd stop after that. What else do you want?
OK, maybe Prague and the rest of it, too. But that's it. Come on, they signed a paper. Ease up on the hysteria, don't commit any logical fallacies.
Well we didn't see that Poland thing coming but at least we weren't illogical. It's not a slope. There's nothing slippery.
Hmm, Alsace-Lorraine, well that doesn't count. You've clearly lost your grip on reason if you think this shows some kind of trend or something.
Does anyone know if similar powers exist to take over things like power-stations, water supplies etc in the event of some attack/emergency?
The Wired article keeps talking about "covered critical infrastructure" without actually defining exactly what that means.
The described intent (for arguments sake lets assume they are being honest for a change) is to secure critical infrastructure. This could include things like the phone network (essential for the emergency services and governemt to function), the power grid, water supply, gas and electric distribution systems. This is not about taking over Random Corp's internal network.
Of course, as with all "emergency powers" legislation there is massive scope for abuse and for creep in what is defined as "critical", which is why they are almost always a bad idea and should always have very strict checks and balances from all branches of the government and judiciary.
Paul Leader
It's called "Martial Law," and should only be invoked during times of dire emergency, if at all.
Not being able to check Facebook does not qualify as a dire emergency.
should've been on "secure" rather than on "emergency"
...of any technology issue? Or any issue? And by "right" I mean "correct". As someone who is not a fan of the two parties (nor partisanship), it amazes me that anyone in Connecticut wants their state associated with this man.
a bunch of rich men (its about money, not love) taking up a bunch of women represents an equal sized population of poorer men who are now without a mate, through no fault of their own
so now you have a bunch of angry rootless loveless men in your society without any hopes for their future and nothing to lose. use your boundless imagination as to the effects of that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From reading TFA, this is about the government needing the power to take over critical infrastructure in the advent of a threat to Americas national security. So for example this allows them to take over control of (and security of) electronic control networks running things like the electricity grid if the spooks get wind of an immanent cyber attack.
Just like the feds used their power to shut down US airspace after 9/11, the feds need the power to take over, disconnect, shut down, secure or control computer systems and networks controlling critical infrastructure in the advent of a "Cyber 9/11" attack (a threat that is not just the stuff of movies like Die Hard 4.0)
Per the proposal, "Critical Infrastructure" does NOT mean Google or Facebook or Slashdot or whatever, it means things like power grids, gas plants, water systems, hospitals, emergency services, oil refineries etc.
Terror, fear and threats are too easy to manufacture. With laws like this, a few people can seize powers and rule above the people. Then, traffic gets filtered or blocked and no one learns who really did 9/11 or the 'internet attack of 2015' or whatever it will be.
After all, how many national emergencies have happened in our lifetimes and how long have they lasted?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The one way to ensure our network would go down and never come back up would be to take a complete stranger and put them in control. Make that complete stranger someone that works for the government and I'd be surprised if it didn't just burst into flame on the spot.
There, fixed it for you.
Tinfoil hat fantasies aside, when's the last time the Federal government's gotten *anything* right?
This is a complete recipe for disaster at best, total malediction at worst.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
every man with more than one woman represents an equal sized population of men without any woman, through no fault of their own
a man without a woman is rootless, loveless, forlorn, without a future, and nothing to lose. such a population of men hurt society in various ways
furthermore, a woman who chooses to share a man is making a financial agreement, not a romantic one. so it's classism: a rich man can simply afford more wives. classism degrades society in many ways, but denying some poor men a wife, and hollowing out some women's romantic life to an empty financial transaction, are amongst the more terrible forms of classism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Talking about weaknesses, why does this bill specify "the federal government" ? That's a hell of a lot of people that that sentence covered. Why aren't they giving this power to the military, say the newly created cyber command ?
Given who receives this power, one would think it is not -at all- meant to be used in "emergencies". And Obama doesn't trust the military (not that that wasn't obvious yet).
DHS : "We have intercepted unpatriotic broadcasts from this IP address. We should brute-force our way in and terminate the offending process, while installing our own rootkit for future monitoring."
BOFH : "Yes. Or I could just kill the switch port and go back to farming motes on my DK. And while I'm in there, I'll disable YOUR port too."
It amazes me that the DHS continues to exist, after nearly a decade of blissfully ignoring the constitution and systematically wasting public funds with their half-baked scare tactics and military-grade solutions "Fuck thinking, let's blow things up the hard way". Seems I could replace the entire Cybersecurity wing with, you know, just me and a laptop running Linux.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
the slippery slope argument is not an effective argument against power grabs. so when i argue against slippery slopes, i am not arguing for power grabs, i am merely arguing for better tactics. understand?
so when i stand against slippery slope arguments, i am asking you and others to simply make more factual arguments against power grabs. the slippery slope argument is intellectually lazy at best, and is mostly just empty panic that in no way actually helps the good cause
ineffective impotent slippery slope argument: "don't pass the law against internet privacy! next they will confiscate our computers and declare martial law!" omg! the sky is falling! whatever...
influential coherent factual argument: "don't pass the law against internet privacy. the rationale for the law is based on an incorrect assumption that piercing the veil of anonymity will somehow reduce child pornography. it only punishes law abiding citizens while the child pornographers will continue their exploits." hmm. this is a good point. maybe we should reconsider our support for this law...
see the difference?
the slippery slope argument is a feeble mind cowering in the corner that convinces no one of anything except that you have are overreacting spastic fight-or-flight adrenaline junkie. i am asking you instead to have a level headed coherent mind, making influential arguments
nowhere in any logical argument will anyone ever refer to a slippery slope if they actually want to make a difference in this world. the concept of the slippery slope and an influential argument are mutually exclusive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I for one welcome our new SkyNet overlords!
Bet it will ultimately have a similar name that we can all trust.
Patriot Cyber Security Act
We're from the government and we're here to help (you secure your network)
The only way the Feds will control anything on my network is when they do it over my cold, dead ass! This ain't China! This is supposed to be the United States, land of the free.
Sounds like something a terrorist pedophile would say...
Sarcasm aside, this is already happening in many Western nations. Just look at the censorship in Australia.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Senator Lieberman will, of course, ensure that Israel's Likud Party has a copy of whatever enabling codes are necessary to instigate the takeover. Because, of course, how can the US be safe without Israel's firm hand on the tiller of America's ship of state?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I've very, very briefly worked with government-employed sysadmins. They're forced to adhere to many rules and regulations, and while those procedures might keep things organized day-to-day, during an emergency troubleshooting the guy doing the fix has to be able to operate freely and quickly.
I'll put my money on any civilian systems administrator to do a better job than a DHS "administrator" any day.
And all these systems sadly rely on the internet in many cases....
Seriously... I'm not joking :(
are you serious? you can't possibly be serious
if you're trolling: not biting. if you're joking: lol. if you're serious: LOL, moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From reading TFA, this is about the government needing the power to take over critical infrastructure in the advent of a threat to Americas national security. So for example this allows them to take over control of (and security of) electronic control networks running things like the electricity grid if the spooks get wind of an immanent cyber attack.
Just like the feds used their power to shut down US airspace after 9/11, the feds need the power to take over, disconnect, shut down, secure or control computer systems and networks controlling critical infrastructure in the advent of a "Cyber 9/11" attack (a threat that is not just the stuff of movies like Die Hard 4.0)
Per the proposal, "Critical Infrastructure" does NOT mean Google or Facebook or Slashdot or whatever, it means things like power grids, gas plants, water systems, hospitals, emergency services, oil refineries etc.
Critical infrastructure is a vague, nebulous term which can be expanded to just about anything a government wants, especially when it has the power of the Patriot Act to bolster any other law.
The treaty passes, and suddenly we're in violation of said treaty because unlicensed copyrighted content is moving over our network. O NOES! ITS AN EMERGENCEY!!! WE MUST LOCKS DOWN TEH NETWERKS!!
I'm sure the Obama administration will be in favor of this bill, since they're basically in bed with the content distribution industry already.
Full disclosure: I'm a liberal, and this pisses me the fuck off. I favor government involvement, but only when it's done well and to the benefit of the people of the United States.
What's that Hugo? You like this idea? This is how you did it?
Before you take this flame bait seriously, please consider the guy warning you about "anti-civil libertarians" is the same guy who said:
"Yet civilians still need protection from things they don't understand."
Obviously you should discount everything "postbigbang" says, just because of something else he said which is rather anti-libertarian itself and hypocritical to boot.
After all, that's what he is telling you you to do with Leiberman...
Ad-Hominem is fun! You can show anyone should be ignored.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
anything is possible
but when you argue in the realm of the realistic, then its obvious that men seek to accumulate women 99x more times than the reverse, and that the romantic harem may exist, but for the other 99% of harems, its pretty much a financial arrangement
occam's razor: when you hear hoofbeats, its going to be horses, not zebras
likewise, when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a rich guy with a bunch of women
the exotic theoretical offerings you allude to simply have no probative value or logical coherence, because they are so exceedingly rare, and always will be (this is where you argue that your exotic utopian visions are possible. yes, all sorts of things are possible if you can miraculously make people behave like they won't on their own. zzz)
as for your women with legal protections: again i'm certain you can find me the odd weirdo who is happy to share a man romantically, but for the vast majority of women, polygamy is simply the surrendering of the possibility of romance, and sacrificing the pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial security
additionally, you have not examined my simple mathematical inevitable truth: polygamy results in a population of poor men with no hope of finding a mate, through no fault of their own, and this degrades society as any group of angry loveless rootless forlorn nothing to lose no future men would
you're an ivory tower type: you've made a fanciful exotic argument in a void of any realistic understanding of human nature. you're a college kid with a lot of book reading, but no real life experience with real human beings
you should stand against polygamy, for the sake of society and the individual. to conclude otherwise is ivory tower foolishness. you're deluding yourself. not that my post will stop you. now is where you begin furiously building a wall of denial against my words, to preserve your psychological dependence on your blind idealism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Government, not private industry, created the conditions for the scenario to happen. So yeah, when gov't screws up, private business has to fix it, and sometimes it takes awhile.
Similarly, Exxon Valdez was caused because gov't, caving to environmentalist pressure, decided to block construction of a pipeline across land, creating the possibility of more shipping disasters.
With all the gov't meddling, regulation, and bungling, it's amazing private business manages to get anything worthwhile accomplished.
Constitutionally Correct
I may be nitpicking, but shouldn't the title of this piece be "Bill Would Give Feds 'Emergency' Powers To Secure Civilian Nets" ?
The proposed bill hasn't been passed, and seeing the headline in my RSS feed just about gave me an arrhythmia when it indicated the deal was already done.
I run a hospital network that I consider (in my provincial way) "critical." However, I guess I'm a 'fucking retard' because I allow connections to the internet--in fact, rely on them to get medical info out to rural clinics and get info in to the doctors.
But I'd like to change my ways and NOT be retarded anymore. So I'll be severing the internet connection tonight. So, when all the systems fail tomorrow I'll tell them "According to Jethro Rose, critical infrastructure cannot be on the internet!"
Then I'll tell them about the much better system you have devised. Which is...?
so if we are doomed, mr. pessimist, why are you arguing with me if its so inevitable?
go build your survivalist cave, and leave the argument to those who actually believe they might win the argument. what's the point of arguing if you've already accepted defeat? i believe in the possibility of progress and the curtailing of governmental intrusive powers. you apparently don't
you're simply a coward: you've given up the fight. you're weak: you see the threat, and moan and cry that you can't stop it. well i believe we can stop it. does that make me deluded? perhaps. but if government power is ever going to be curtailed, it will be done by the optimists, not by the likes of you. 1% chance of success is better than 0% chance of success (because you've given up)
the words you have written above do not actually define reality. well, actually, they do define a reality: your future reality (not mine). you have chosen for yourself (not for me) the path of defeatism and helplessness. do not confuse your character failings with the reality we actually live in. your words only define the parameters by which you have chosen to be a slave and a loser. i am still my own master, and your self-subjugation only tears you down, not me. your self-chosen limitations do not limit me at all, and do not define the reality we actually live in, only your self-chosen, sad, dim future
if we ever are going to have a doomed future of autocratic domination, it will be mostly due to losers like yourself: those who have hysterically and proactively given up their own freedoms, and sacrificed them to those who intend us harm. there are always those who intend harm. but often the amount of harm they actually inflict is not defined by their intent, but simply by the vast number of losers like yourself who simply roll over and accept it
therefore, if our future is orwellian, it is because of people who think like you: those who accept their slavery, in abject, self-defined helplessness
stand up and fight for your rights, or shut the fuck up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
all species have homosexuals to some low percentage. its simply a genetic aberration, like low sperm count or infertile eggs, that simply means some individuals don't reproduce. harmless and natural phenomenon
so allow homosexuals to be homosexuals, they won't hurt you or society in anyway, because there is no ill effects to their homosexual behavior. society will still reproduce, because the majority will always be naturally inclined to produce offspring
sorry, no gay panic for you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if a woman chooses to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman, she is pretty much giving up the chance for romance and love and sacrificing her pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial stability
i am certain you can produce for me examples of women who freely and out of love choose to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman. and i can produce to you examples of albino deer
the rare exotic fringe is not instructive as to reality. and for 99% of cases of polygamy, it is a woman surrendering her romantic possibilities for financial security with a rich man who has other women with him for the same romance-sacrificing reasons
welcome to planet earth, welcome to reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We have bigger things to worry about than the furious screaming of a pseudo-primate like Lieberman. He's marginalized himself so effectively that only other crazies will associate with him, so the best predictor of a bill's failure is his name in the sponsorship section.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
I don't see the special need for this legislation. If things got to the point where the President thought he needed to take over control of your network in a crisis situation, the message is likely to be personally delivered by a gentleman accompanied by other gentleman with machine guns, so you're pretty much gonna let them in whether there is a new law about it or not...
Joe Lieberman should be sentenced to life under house arrest for crimes against the constitution and people of the United States!
It particularly bugs me that a Jew (who knows all about the Nazi terror) would be so cavalier about personal civil rights and the role of due process.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Which would still imply that the Democrats share some of the blame, because at no point in recent memory have the Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress on their own.
Yes, spineless (and/or corrupt) democrats are part of the problem. Which part of my post lambasting spineless democrats for exactly that sort of behavior didn't you bother to read?
That said, spineless democrats were not the ones who drove the toxic "de-regulate everything, the market will do all that is good, cure all of society's ills, and save us all" agenda that engineered this collapse, nor did they drive the angenda that engineered a similar collapse that led directly to the Great Depression (in fact, the reason we had a great depression was because of republican tightening of monetary policy for many of the reasons the right espouses such things today, with disasterous results). In both cases it was republican thinking, republican policy, and replublican action that led to the disaster...thankfully this time we have a government willing to loosen monetary policy and steer clear of the worst carnage a great depression would bring.
Will we have to pay for it? You bet.
Will it hurt? Most assuradly.
Would we have been better off "letting the market decide" and riding this collapse down into the belly of another Great Depression? Not on your life.
Why don't you just own up to the fact that the Democrat's hands are just as dirty as those of the GOP?
Because they aren't. As despicable as spineless acquiescence is, it is a far cry from crafting, pursing, and lobbying for policies that are designed to gut government regulation of an industry that history has shown time and time again needs effective regulation, and which history has shown time and time again will create the very mayhem we have recently experienced. Not that I'm applauding spineless or corrupt democrats either, but a congress full of spineless, greedy fools is far less dangerous than a congress full of "let's gut government to the core, so I can make more off my oil well" zealots. Not that either is good, and not to say I don't despite both.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Stupid people learn from their mistakes. Smart people learn from other people's mistakes (Chinese Proverb). Apparently the USA don't belong to the second category...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
people commit suicide
in other words, they freely choose to limit their own freedoms
so what maximizes freedom?
1. preventing them from destroy their freedom
2. allowing them to freely choose to dissolve their freedom
i choose #1. it seems liek you choose #2. i believe, and i think i am being more logically coherent than you, that position #1 maximizes liberty and freedom more than #2
now expand this to other choices of slavery over freedom: to addictive drugs, to financial security, etc.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So it's okay for the federal government to swoop in and take over privately owned data lines and equipment nodes because it's a common public data infrastructure.... but its NOT okay for the federal government to swoop in and say that these data lines and equipment nodes have to provide the public with equal access to other lines and nodes?
Thanks so much... Where do I get off this runaway train?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
in a democracy, rule is by consent of the ruled. that's as good as it is going to get. and no government is clearly worse than almost any kind of government
these are the spankingly obvious facts about your reality. accept them, there are no other choices, unless you wish to remain as you are: a blathering crackpot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Wall Street Journal writes of "Battling the Cyber Warmongers". The big event in this area seems to have been the Cyber Shock Wave TV special, in which various former senior Federal officials participated in a simulation of a "cyber attack" on the power and phone system. Big names were involved: Michael Chertoff (former head of Homeland Security) and John Negroponte (former acting CIA director).
The show was embarrassing. It was clear that the participants not only had no clue what to do, they didn't know who to call who did. The person representing Energy kept harping on the thousands of energy companies there are in the US, and how they needed more authority over them. The level of cluelessness makes it clear how Hurricane Katrina (for which they had three days warning, and which happened on the watch of many of the participants) was botched.
In reality, the US power grid is divided operationally into seven regional grids, each with a control center and a backup control center. The supervisors at those control centers are the ones who really run things. If someone in the U.S. Government is dealing with an attack on the power grid, they need to have those supervisors on speed dial. In an emergency, the best thing representatives of the Government can do is call up each one and ask "What do you need right now". They're likely to get an answer like "We need troops protecting these key substations", or "We need a heavy-lift helicopter to move a spare transformer." Actions that would help fix the problem. One of the listed duties of the shift supervisor at the PJM Interconnect is to talk to Government officials.
The Government officials in that simulated emergency didn't have that basic info. They didn't know that there were seven people who were really running things. But they wanted to be in charge. That's the problem.
Few high government officials have a background as first responders or in incident management. If anything, the military officers are more likely to have a clue; their training teaches them to prioritize in a crisis and to deal with confusing, conflicting information.
i can build castles in the sky too, signifying nothing about reality
reality: almost any government is better than no government. civilization is impossible without government. deny that, and all your bullshit becomes possible. but of course, by denying the obvious, you're just living in crackpot land
until next time, retard...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in reality, 99% of polygamy is a rich guy with a bunch of women
i mean, i can find a guy who can drive 100 mph all the time and never get in accident. so we should repeal speed limits?
the exotic outliers on the bell curve do not define anything. the fact that above 90 mph you are talking about lots of accidents, and that with polygamy a lot of women are sacrificing their happiness for financial stability and leaving a lot of poor men without the possibility of marriage (and all the negative effects of that) then obviously: no to polygamy, for obvious real world reasons
occam's razor my friend, it cuts through the bullshit well
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Actually, dead people don't have limited freedom, they're just dead."
if at 9 am i choose to go to the coffee shop, order a 16 oz french roast, read slashdot on my laptop, get in a discussion with a stranger about footwear when its raining outside, then go walk to work, this represents a range of freedoms and choices
but if at 9 am i choose to swallow a shotgun, and do nothing after that, because i am dead, i have chosen to have a heck of a lot less freedom and choices than if i remained alive
when you're dead, you have zero freedom. choosing death is choosing to destroy your freedom. absolutely and literally
we can coherently talk about choices in one's life which limit your freedoms later. i am against such choices, because they are always made for malformed thinking. as a father, you will certainly warn your child about choosing their own slavery. life, in fact, is mostly about not getting your freedom limited, through bad choices
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
is a rich guy and a bunch of women. yes, there are other more exotic forms of polygamy, but we're talking 99.99% of what actually occurs
this results in poor men without a chance for marriage, through no fault of their own. lots of angry loveless young men with no romantic future and nothing to lose is simply dangerous, and unfair. on a society and individual level, therefore, polygamy should remain illegal, as it does effect you and me, it does not occur in a vacuum
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hasbara is patrolling everything, now - even Slashdot!
Everyone knows that Lieberman is a crank who has used the threat of "terror" to reverse, at every possible opportunity, the fundamental principles of Liberty as hallowed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He tirelessly advances the interests of Israel over the better national interest of the U.S.
He has repeatedly made the arguments that equate 1 Israeli Prisoner of War (Gilad Shalit)with 1 million Gazan children, starved at gunpoint. Yes. Not an exaggeration.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
i've been speculating upon the nature of the next big mess to hit the USA and my money is on a cyber attack. the exact nature of it is not what these cyber-war nutjobs are talking about, but rather, an attack which enables a vast proportion of the growing ocean of private information about citizens, specifically, so many names, addresses, SSNs and credit card numbers that it cripples the new internet based economy, as well as electronic banking. what would happen if there was so much data falling into the hands of internet fraudsters that they had to literally turn off electronic financial systems? wouldn't this damage the us economy and reputation as much as 911 or bp's oil spill? everyone has been raving about how great the cloud is but what happens if the majority of the cloud providers data centres get compromised and the data siphoned out and distributed to every cybercrime gang out there?
That read the title as "Bill Gates feeds 'Emergency' Powers to Secure Civilian Nets"?
Confused the hell out of me to say the least...
First the President has to declare a "cyber emergency". Then the plan for dealing with the emergency is supposed to be developed? And how long does that plan development take? Jeebus! If this thing even gets to floor for a vote, the last shred of confidence anyone may still have for the Government being able to do anything right will be lost.
On a positive note: This ridiculous bill was co-authored by Joe Leiberman. That alone should be enough to laugh it out of committee; I don't think he does anything that isn't, first and foremost, designed to enhance the glory of Joe Leiberman. And to think he might have actually been a heartbeat away from the Presidency. If if weren't for all the damage that was done as a result, one could almost thank the Supreme Court for tossing out the election results of 2000 and appointing the Wonder Chimp instead of allowing Leiberman to get anywhere near the Oval Office.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Well stated. I wish more people understood economics in this way. Much of what the government mandates in the market is bad for business and the economy in the long run, even if it looks like it might benefit everyone here and now. Personally, I think our economy would benefit if the government did away with all of the regulations covering the unpredictable (which usually results in excess paperwork and punishes people for the unavoidable), and carefully enforced the laws that cover larger, reasonable regulations. The founding fathers envisioned a nation where everyone takes part, and the law protects everyone equally, giving each of the three branches of the federal government oversight over the other two, and giving the citizens oversight over all three (through the voting process). I also wish more people would actually read the constitution so they can see what the federal government has the authority to do, and what is explicitly forbidden.
Surely not with People like FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, praising Dictators like Hugo Chavez for his forced takeover the Venezuelan media in his 'incredible revolution'.
Want to bet "or civil unrest" or words to that effect somehow sneak in there? Or that some President now or down the line issues an "Executive Order" modifying the "interpretation and application" of the new law? Say, when the nation finds itself scratching its collective head and muttering over the results of an e-ballot e-lection because nobody knows anybody who voted to reelect the signer of said Executive Order?
Never happen, right? At least, not until after they finish dismantling all of those WMDs they found in Iraq, eh?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
you may wish later you had not done that
at which point, you will agree with me 100%
until then, you live in an ivory tower with opinions that are not valid or logically coherent in the real world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mod parent Flambait. Not insightful.
Hitler proposed autobahns and VWs. If Lieberman was pushing for net neutrality it could still be a good idea.
Ad hominem is lame.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I can understand the importance of securing the core Internet backbone, especially since it was originally put in place by/for government for military and university purposes.
The prerequisite is to assume that the government can react faster to a security threat than the private sector manufacturers of the network equipment to patch it up and that the government has a fleet of network engineers that are better than the engineers that were in charge of the network in the first place. I just don't see it because the hardware is typically proprietary, and how can an outsider react faster than the ones in charge of the networks?
Hey asshole, it doesnt matter what security any other OS has, Windows is still shit on a stick. The biggest company with ooodles of money can do much better, thats the issue here. Comparing an insanely rich company with income that would make most countries envy it with some free hobbyist OS is grasping for straws, any straws. Its nothing but greed that sits between us users and better security. Greed and utter incompetence from management.
Microsoft should have much better security than the others, not almost as good as. Try running your precious Windows computer without antiwhatever for a week, visiting sites without regard. It will be a smoking pile of bits and pieces and its no fault but Microsofts. I dont give a fuck it has more market, it should have better security for all the money Microsft prints daily.
That said, the Secunia comparison is flawed, first and foremost because it compares Windows only, to a Linux distribution (a distribution is the linux kernel, Gnu and most applications ever made for Linux). Its like comparing Windows only to Windows + every application ever made and conclude that yes, Windows without any apps is more safe than Windows with apps installed.
Secunia also follows Microsofts ratings for security issues when they are widely known to downplay any issue until proven wrong and even then in most cases they still mark serious flaws as non-critical. Linux on the other hand grades local exploits as serious.
HTTP/1.1 400