Slashdot Mirror
NSA Director Says the US Must Secure the Internet
Trailrunner7 writes "The United States has a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the Internet against both internal and external attackers, a duty that the federal government takes very seriously, the country's top military cybersecurity official said Tuesday. However, Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and commander of the US Cyber Command, provided virtually nothing in the way of details of how the government intends to accomplish this rather daunting task. 'We made the Internet and it seems to me that we ought to be the first folks to get out there and protect it,' Alexander said. 'The challenge before us is large and daunting. But we have an obligation to meet it head-on.' It's unlikely that any of Alexander's comments Tuesday will do much to quiet the criticisms of the Obama administration's security efforts thus far. Speaking mostly in generalities, Alexander emphasized the administration's commitment to the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, a plan developed by the Bush administration and recently partially de-classified by Obama administration officials."
Until you control all the INPUTS, you can't control the OUTPUTS
I think these folks are actually trying to use scare-tactics in order to increase their own budgets short-term,
knowing that there is no feasible method of performing such a task.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Secure it from you control freaks? Sure.
Yes it's me!!!!
"... we ought to be the first folks..."
This says it all for me, he's non-technical.
We did make the Internet, and between government and business and private citizens we spent about $1 Trillion bringing it up to the state where Carly Fiorina and the other outsourcing robber-barons could use it to ship the whole information economy to India and China, cratering the return we expected from our investment, so they could pocket a few $billion in quick profit.
We'd like our money back. Someone tell Carly she owes us.
The internet is already secure for me, when using SSH to a trusted host.
Job done.
Block all traffic to .ru and .cn.
So long as the smarter people remain outside the law, it will never be secure. /generalization
Living With a Nerd
FTFY. There is something very ironic about censoring that phrase.
Read: Power Grab.
The way to "protect" it is to not use it for stuff that, um, needs protecting.
Proverbs 21:19
But the morons now in charge just don't understand how it actually works, nor do they care to learn.
Because we can!
Or at least that was 'good enough' of a reason for the Thunderbirds
Allwe need now are some 'net savvy puppets with supersonic jets
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Gen. Keith Alexander is absolutely correct.
It is a daunting task, but the USA should be leading the fight in securing the internet from nefarious organizations like the NSA.
I think it would be more accurate to say we need to protect ourselves from the Internet vs. we should protect the Internet.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
COMING TO FIREWALL THE FUCKING NET YEAH!
IPV4, Your days are through
Now you must
Answer to
ARPAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FUCK YEAH
Why would they be worried about securing the net when they won't secure our boarders...
You could be placed under investigation because of Who you ssh with.
the one and only Richard Clarke:
""A cyberattack could disable trains all over the country," he tells Fresh Air host Terry Gross. "It could blow up pipelines. It could cause blackouts and damage electrical power grids so that the blackouts would go on for a long time. It could wipe out and confuse financial records, so that we would not know who owned what, and the financial system would be badly damaged. It could do things like disrupt traffic in urban areas by knocking out control computers. It could, in nefarious ways, do things like wipe out medical records."
A cyberattack could also disrupt my game of Medal Of Honor.
Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
K. Trout
Should the government really be trying to manage security across the ENTIRE internet? Would you rather plug 10,000 holes in an old barrel or just build a new barrel? Maybe I just don't understand the issue enough, but wouldn't a separate Government/Military/infrastructure internet be more viable and easier to implement on existing systems thus costing less? And if you really needed access to the public internet, you could control the points of entry and monitor them much easier and more effectively.
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson: never try.
I didn’t realize the Internet itself was insecure.
We could talk about securing applications that run on top of the Internet, but that would be a different conversation and I am not sure that is where we want the government to be.
"We made the Internet and it seems to me that we ought to be the first folks to get out there and protect it,' Alexander said." That's like saying the guy who dug the foundations built the house and is responsible for it? And when he says "securing the Internet against both internal and external attackers" surely by it's nature all attacks are internal.....or external, whatever.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The internet is basically hosted on public infrastructure. Until the government decides to lay down it's own lines (above and beyond what it currently has, which in no way would support national bandwidth requirements) and host it on hardened equipment there's little the administration can do other than wave their finger and say, "Hey you guys, make this safer!" And to be honest, this has a lot less to do with protecting us from cyber threats and a lot more to do with implementing federal taxation on usage/commerce as well as visibility of data in and out of any node on the national network without all the red tape that's currently involved. You can call me a conspiracist, but it doesn't sound as crazy when you consider all the truly critical Government/Military traffic is already hosted on dedicated government-owned lines/equipment.
Good... tell you what NSA, you go ahead and when you've managed to actually track down the spammers and the phishers and we have some "extrordinary rendition" (I was thinking of rendition more in the soap sense), then I'll believe you're serious. /It's fun to be an Internet Touch Chick //but I DO so wish they'd take me up on the challenge
The Digital Sorceress
...Why doesn't the government worry about securing their own networks before acting like they have the "expertise" to secure the entire internet.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
The first step is to stop movie and music piracy, right? Truly the biggest threat to our country (if you ask any politician getting big campaign donations from Hollywood and big media, that is).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just add an "s" to your "http"!
i think the rest of you username got cu
The Internet is quite secure, it's the software systems that are attached to the internet that are not. Time to develop a trusted opererating system and a secure browser.
"...a network that many security experts see as hopelessly broken and flawed by design."
wait, what?
Why not concentrate on the folks who are exposing critical systems to the internet - if, in fact, they are?
I know folks in the defense industry - all the critical stuff has not physical path to the internet. To access that information means switching machines.
Same goes for other industries. I mean, network admins aren't stupid - it's pretty obvious that if it's really critical you don't connect it to the internet. Even the PHBs get that.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Trying to secure the internet is like trying to stop air flowing through a screen door. They might have better luck securing critical infrastructure and implementing a backup communication channel for that infrastructure should the internet be compromised.
"secure the internet against internal and external attackers?"
What does external mean here? The first thing that comes to mind would have to be some kind of E.T..
Someone explain what 'external' means in relation to the internet. Unless it's referring to some kind of physical world outside of the internet..!!
Is there a world outside of the internet!!?
At least the NSA contributed selinux. With their budgets if they want to help make the network more secure the single best thing they could do is develop analysis tools (Stanford checker et al) to find defects in the computer codes running the network and systems connected to it and not just hoard these capabilities.
The actual statement sounds kind of lame in that it provides zero effective information on either what is meant or how it would be done.
Personally I think the best outcome is that efforts are made to make the network itself as reliable as possible but NOT secure. In other words DNS works to the extent that you can't blindly inject bogus responses into systems UNLESS you have direct control over the network path between systems. DNSSEC and its planet scale trust anchor is a poster child for futility.
End-to-End security where the network is assumed to be insecure is the only architectural method for security that makes any sense whatsoever at the scale of the Internet.
it seems to me that we ought to be the first folks to get out there and protect it
What is it exactly that needs protection here?
I thought the Internet was designed to "heal itself" from attacks by using a flexible routing system.
In fact, wasn't that a primary goal for ARPA when it designed the network? To ensure that its architecture did not have a single point of failure?
Does this call for "protection" mean that the Internet is somehow not robust as originally designed? What is the proof of this supposed lack-of-robustness?
This press statement makes me really worried. Considering the recent news about Congress wanting a kill switch for the Internet, an NSA announcement that it will "secure" the internet sounds like spin.
Have you ever heard the joke about how different branches of the U.S. military "secure" a building? The NSA puchline would be "rig the building for demolition, then put the Big Red Button right next to the light switch.
Between my experience with STU-IIIs and being a Dune fan ("He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing") I'm really worried that the NSA has been tasked to create an internet kill switch, and that the "security" efforts they will soon recommend will be a pretext for the kill switch's creation. The NSA is the logical government agency to implement a kill switch, and designing the new security system would give them the access they'd need. Normally I hate conspiracy theories, but this is just creepy to me.
Footnotes:
For all you coders out there, I meant "=", not "=="; in my opinion the NSA getting involved assigns the value "kill switch" to "secure".
Joke punchline origin: every piece of NSA designed hardware I've handled has a kill switch built in, and one of my biggest headaches was people asking "what does (PRESS) this do?". Quote from the STU-III handbook:
The STU-III battery backup allows power to be removed, as in a power failure or unplugging the unit to move it, without losing the encryption data. The zeroization button bypasses this backup and erases the encryption data. After zeroization, the STU-III must be rekeyed and the CIKs must be remade. The STU-III is zeroized:
In an Emergency. - If the STU-III is ever in danger of falling into hostile hands, zeroize it to prevent the adversary from obtaining a functional unit. . .
By Accident. - The accident usually follows an employee's curiosity. The employee starts playing with the buttons and zeroizes the unit. Be sure to brief your employees on the importance of not pressing or playing with the zeroization button. Refill the STU-III using a new seed key [or operational key].
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
A house can be considered secure when doors and windows are closed and locked. Is the hose secure from criminal invasion? No
The house is secured from unauthorized access. Can the house be secured? No
So, How do you stop criminal entry? Stop the criminal. In the process of stopping the criminal can the home be used? No
Using the home will endanger or at least penalize the private home owners, and may inadvertently criminalize the home owner,
because there is a pot-plant growing (not for use/distribution) in the back yard.
Anyway good police work, investigation tools, reasonable response (offensive and defensive) weapons, and sensible laws are (IMO)
the only acceptable ways to stop criminals without harming your people, culture, economy....
Any blanket solution to crime (like the drug-war and god-sex laws) is always dumb as dirt and will never work.
Crime is flexible "Asymmetric" you can only lose while playing catch-up.
Good police work always adapts to the crime and times to get the dirt on the perps.
Holy-Drug/Sex/Alcohol... laws always create an ungovernable underground economy that makes citizens criminals (USA is the example).
When citizens are made criminals, then you must increase the protection for the remaining parochial-dogma citizens.
Good security always starts at the borders (points of entry). [i.e. Doors, Windows, Customs, Air/Sea Port, Top-Level gateways and routes...].
The laws already exist to stop criminals and locks and latches won't help US, EU, RU, CN....
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Agreed. Except that it is "increase the budgets long term".
"NSA Director Says the US Must Secure the Internet"
Translation:
We in the NSA have several reasons for wanting control over the internet:
But we don't want you (the NSA) to secure the internet..
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
It looks like the internet is a dangerous thing because it allows unsanctioned free speech.
And unsanctioned free speech is dangerous.
Perhaps we can have some govt. issued permits that authorize "journalists" to speak.
This way if someone posts something unsanctioned the permit can just be revoked and since all "Journalist" are registered we know who to imprison.
We can still have free speech we just have to make sure it's properly sanctioned by a "Journalist".
"We made the Internet and it seems to me that we ought to be the first folks to get out there and protect it,"
Protect it from who, what and why?
And if you are serious, start by getting rid of spam. And if you should somehow manage that, you have most likely also killed the (free) internet as we know it.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
You don't deal with issues like this by inaction, or by battening down the hatches while leaving a giant pipeline of hackers and botnets flowing from China into the US.
You pull the plug on the root servers recognizing China until THEY shut them down.
Actions speak louder than Fear.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There are ways the US government can do some in advancing Internet security as a whole. Some that come to my mind (usual long list):
1: Subsidizing an OATH compatible OTP system. Perhaps get Aladdin/SafeNet or RSA to make tokens which support numbers that change every 30 seconds, and apps for devices. Now, a thief has to do more than just slurp a password to compromise a bank account. They would have to actively mess with the Web browser. This leads to #2.
2: A ZTIC-like system. This way, transactions are confirmed actively, so malware present on the system can't actively transfer money even if a bank account's password is compromised. This can be a hardware device, or a phone app.
3: Crypto contest for a RSA successor. RSA has stood strong, but another public key algorithm that is quantum computer resistant is needed. Of course, this isn't an easy task, compared to making symmetric key algos.
4: A backbone between businesses similar to NIPRnet, but for civilian transactions.
5: A civilian CAC for client certificates, with good mechanisms in place to deal with cards that are lost, stolen, locked out due to bad PIN retries, or accidentally microwaved.
6: SELinux's successor. Preferably a hybrid between it and AppArmor. The more technology in keeping applications to just what they need to run, the better.
7: This isn't directly Internet affecting, but perhaps find some R&D into backup technologies? It used to be a while back that companies were through about backups, and if you even thought about being a sysadmin, you knew how to do dumps, tars, full/incremental/differential backups, tape rotations (grandfather/father/son), offsite tapes, and so on. These days, people don't even bother with backups, and if they do, they think the cloud can do it, forgetting the time it takes to suck all that info back through a WAN connection on restore. Yes, backups are boring as all get-out, but in case other security measures fall apart, backups are what one uses to piece things back together.
...and secure our physical borders?
Amazing how everyone immediately thinks of encryptions and sniffers in terms of security.
But how many well-placed bombs would it take to take down the entire internet (or at least most of it). It's not nearly as redundant a network as some would like to believe, and if you can take down the backbone, the trunks have nothing to talk to.
Good luck with that.
I know you can't ask Slashdot to read the article, but can't we even read the summary anymore? From the headline "US Must secure the Internet" (A change from the actual headline "US has a duty to secure the internet" to the actual NSA Director "has a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the internet") maybe you can say they're talking about making online ID mandatory so all activities can be traced to an individuals internet license ID. Or something. But they're not. They're talking about providing expertise and advice to help others secure both public networks (like the Internet) as well as private networks (such as corporate and government networks.) This is similar to how the FDA advises the public on the proper temperature to cook your hamburger to to avoid e.coli, but doesn't send in the stormtroopers if their spy sats detect you BBQing undercooked meat. You can say that, given the government track record for incursions into their own networks, they have no business telling others how to secure their networks. And you'd probably be right, but you wouldn't be saying anything that TFA didn't say.
But, the majority of TFA is talking about how the government plans to improve the security of their own networks, and the steps that they have already taken. Very little is spent talking about their planned "leadership" roll in helping secure public and private networks across the country. It sounds an awful lot like leadership by example, however. There's no mention of new laws making security features mandatory, for example. More like just providing advice on how to secure a network, with examples of how they have improved their own security. It's being criticized as being overly broad and generalized. Which, again, is probably valid, since it's exactly the field of the people leveling the critiques. But nothing sounds malicious at all. Nothing sounds like, as people have been saying, they plan to eliminate anonymity by making all internet connections require a traceable license. That's pretty absurd, and if it's been brought up by the government, it wasn't by TFA or anybody in it. What he's saying is, the internet is important, and the government has a duty to protect it from attacks. Such as, a DDoS or other sort of attack taking down key points and knocking a substantial amount of the country offline. That would be a serious blow to the economy, so yes, the government does have a duty to do what it can to prevent that kind of attack.
Last but not least, is the quote that ends TFA.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
but disliking the us govt for what all govts do just makes you look silly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The DOD already has a secure internet. Look at SIPR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPR
When the Internet becomes self-aware security will greatly improve. The extermination of humanity will begin. As so many Slashdotters remind us daily, humans are the weakest link in any security scheme.
NSA Director Says the US Must Secure the Internet
As of 10am EST this morning I have completely secured the Internet. The NSA director and my immediate management have been notified. I closed the ticket.
Perfect Online Resource Kontrol - PORK
You are welcome, my invoice is in the mail - I don't trust this new-fangled intertubes thingy.
wrap the tubes with tape.
Nullius in verba
The "Internet" provides a pipe into my network. My network is secure. I am not sure how anyone would go and secure the inter-networking connection between my network and others. Well, yes, I can see the value of hardening the infrastructure (protecting fiber-optic and cable links). And, taking this literally, that is the meaning.
But, for some reason, I am sure that is not what is meant. What I suspect is that anyone who connects to the main backbones, or a subsidiary will need to have some confirmation that they will not be a source of "attacks". (leading us to attempt to define what "attack" means).
Maybe the US will finally secure its own government computers (preventing the fiasco started by McKinnon).
I am still not sure what "securing the Internet" means.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
... or doesn't see the sub-contractor profit in it.
How about the american corporate reich stays the fuck away from "protecting" the internet in the mafioso sense they no doubt intend?
I'll meet you all in the undernet.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the Internet against both internal and external attackers,
When the man says "external attackers" does he mean people who are not current users and should be forcibly kept out of the internet, or does he mean *reaaaally external* attackers, such as the Borg?
1) Air Gap
2) Sneaker Net
3) f28R^VD(*
4) Profit!
They've been working themselves up to this for a while now, and it appears that the lead-in propaganda campaign has heated up. I can't believe that I haven't seen another post discussing this yet. It fits perfectly with TFA/TFS. Two words.
Trusted Computing.
Here is a paper by Ross Anderson on some of what implementing Trusted Computing will mean.
This had better be nipped before implementation or there won't be another chance. The internet is a tool with more than one use, just as with nearly any tool. While the internet has tremendous power to empower, inform, and enrich, it also has tremendous power to monitor, control, and suppress if Trusted Computing is allowed to be implemented.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
First of all, secure our fucking borders NOW!
Next, get all our security-sensitive govt computer systems the fuck off the Internet.
We as hardworking taxpayers, do not want the systems our tax dollars pay for, to be carelessly hooked up to the public Internet. Doing that goes beyond incompetance and becomes willful negligence. The Internet is not a cheap WAN link. The Internet exists for entertainment, education, advertisement and limited commerce. Cybersecurity for important government computer networks should be enforced by making them connect only by secure "private" network links with no route to the public Internet at all, and allow only specifically authorized users to access them.
They should have thought of that in the seventies.
Or how about security eye for the promiscuous guy.
Je me souviens.
Let's make sex secure for the human race by forcing everybody on earth to have a permanent condom stiched to their genitals... And while we're at it, let's embed sophisticated tracking and vibration detection devices to it. Never again will you have to worry that your wife might be doing your neighbor while you're at work.
From credit card scammers, or from Wikileaks?
Run your browser of a bootable USB stick or better a Live CD... Get a Ham Radio for a Modem, Other people can too. Implement your own security. If you decide to be a sheep you will end up as mutton on someone's plate.
The way the Net is currently implemented, there's no way to secure it. PEBKAC. I'm skeptical it can be secured in any form, because people are frickin' stoooooopid. This is not to say we shouldn't *try*, any more than we should *try* to stop all murders from occurring. I know this will be an unpopular thing to say on SD, but nearly all shenanigans would stop if a way could be found to erase anonymity. Criminals depend on not being identified or caught; this is why more houses get burgled at night. Before you cry foul at the idea, realize that the world is getting ever more connected and therefore ever more vulnerable. All information and all media will be on the Internet. Sooner or later a decision will have to be made as to whether anonymity or a usable world is more important.
Realized there was oil in the Internet...
Why else would the US want to 'secure' it?
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Welcome to the World Wide One Way Network we will send you what we think you want to see please connect credit card reader ...
It must be at least as secure as it was during the Cold War. In fact, we still have the possibility of a loose nuke strike if we aren't careful. But wait, for much of the Cold War, there was no Internet.
The point being, your stupid FaceBook and/or MyMail account don't need jack. If you get 500,000 Viagra spams in your Inbox, it's nonoe of the government's business. That's between you, your provider, and the upstream idiots who let spambots jack their systems. The Stuff the Really Matters (TM) should be old school code double-red-teamed by guys with ties and pocket protectors. Everything else can melt and it really shouldn't matter.
Anybody who runs mission critical DoD stuff through the public Internet should drop a rank or get canned as appropriate.
"Protect the internet from ... EXTERNAL attackers"
I'm sorry, but who is this referring to? Aliens?
Receiving a good education does not ensure that you are right or wrong, but it means you are very highly trained in the existing hubris of your culture.
Great phrase! Have you read Masks of the Universe? Here are some excerpts from the introduction (pdf):
The theme of this book is that the universe in which we live, or think we live, is mostly a thing of our own making. The underlying idea is the distinction between Universe and universes. It is a simple idea having many consequences.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Robotic dick improves sexual intercourse by 500%
Of course the NSA would want this, it makes their job easier, gets them more money, and gets them more power. They portray it as a burden, but it's one they probably foam at the mouth to suffer through. All that power and money, and of course they would need unregulated power to handle such a task as the internet..because the internet is so scary and full of terrorists.
And in the future when mind reading technology comes out but they have to drive a big spike into your head to monitor it, they'll volunteer to handle that as well...because anyone could go all terrorist at any point and they need that kind of information.....plus the rest of the information they could scrape in the process.
And the very act of monitoring, increasing tax burdens and other side effects will create the very terrorists they are searching for at some point. People will only endure so much bullshit, which is probably why they don't tighten the screws down quickly. It's easier to deal with what's squeezed out via the pressure when it's a slow trickle.
Who would buy the next version of Windows if the last version worked well? No one.
The government also has come under fire for attempting to tell companies how to improve their security while suffering a slew of embarrassing intrusions on its own public and classified networks. The most well-known of these attacks is the compromise of a classified Department of Defense network through an infected USB drive in 2008.
From DoD Takes Criticism From Security Experts On Cyberwar Incident posted this Saturday "this James Bond-like scenario doesn't stand up to scrutiny."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
CERN disagrees.
CERN does not disagree. CERN was the birthplace of the World Wide Web" and the internet is much more than just the web. Here's A Short History of Internet Protocols at CERN from the horse's mouth.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
stupid does
that's why human civilization has come to an end
the end doesn't mean 'doomsday'
just means we are not improving anymore
we still live in a world of 'no trust at all'
..crap.
Seriously, what every government is obliged to do is secure their own damn networks and protect the private data of citizens.
The rest of the Internet is none of their business (well, except jailing the SPAM-ers and black hat hackers). ISP's have to take care that things work out (data flows through the tubes), and everyone has to make sure to either not have sensitive data on their end or properly secure it.
You have a door with a lock on your house and you shut it closed when you leave. You don't expect some government force to babysit your entry. Why should they do with the "Internet" then?
"We made the Internet" - what has he been smoking?
Make it secure. Does that mean I'll finally be done cleaning XP Antivirus 2001 (and all it's annual iterations to the current Protector Plus 2010) off of peoples computers? Oh glorious day! Let's celebrate!
Then when it's secure, why not try securing our borders. And securing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Don't forget about securing your personal information stored at banks and credit card places.
Security, a safe word for the paranoid.
We must secure the air! Did you know anyone can just reach out and touch it!?! Anything could be in the air. From now on we will be providing government-issued plastic bags to all citizens. Simply place the bag over your head, secure with the included duct t... I mean, highly technical securing device and enjoy your new-found safety. You won't come into contact with any unsecured air particles for the rest of your life!
Granted all your ideas are good. So are a lot of other ideas on here. I am kind of amazed no one has pointed out the main attack vector on the network. Windows. If we look at the attacks on government systems and private systems we see that the door way in was through a Windows box. The network will never be secure until Windows is secured. Sure key algos are great and work really well still if you box is hacked and the private key stolen so much for strong crypto. The case of DoS attacks. These are never done by machines bought or leased for this purpose but by botnets comprised of "Owned" Windows machines. Will this ever happen? I think not their are too many people making billions of dollars selling so called "Security Products" to secure Windows. Shouldn't an OS be secured by default instead of selling security as an addon?
Its sad to think that my lowly little laptop is more secured than most security agencies computers. What makes it sad is instead of needing a bunch of complex and broken applications to secure it I follow a few simple rules we all here on Slashdot know. I have NO in-bound ports open and even ICMP packets are dropped. I never work under root. I only load applications that come from a known repository. I run Linux and yes use SELinux.
So why can't the security gurus at the government figure this out? After all wasn't the NSA the ones that made SELinux? Well they are using the Windows attack vector so they can lock person freedoms and privacy.
Why is it that they want locks and hold all the keys to my life yet freak out when their own dirty secrets are leaked out? what happen to "By the People"
Oh, I see your mistake--you forgot there is such a thing as credit. If I can't absorb $10,000--I'll borrow it and pay it back monthly. And not at your usurious 50% APR ($416/mo), but more likely at <10% APR (<$132/mo).
Like the OFF SWITCH they wanted last month, this demonstrates that they're terrified of their citizens exercising free speech in a venue where others can hear them. It looks like V was right. " Citizens should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their citizens"