Slashdot Mirror
Academics Should Not Remain Silent On Government Hacking
ananyo writes "The Guardian's technology editor, Charles Arthur, asks why researchers have remained largely silent in the wake of the revelation that the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology's standard for random numbers used for cryptography had been weakened by the NSA: 'The nature of the subversions sounds abstruse: the random-number generator, the 'Dual EC DRBG' standard, had been hacked by the NSA and the UK's GCHQ so that its output would not be as random as it should have been. That might not sound like much, but if you are trying to break an encrypted message, the knowledge that it is hundreds or thousands of times weaker than advertised is a great encouragement.' Arthur attributes the silence of UK academics, at least, to pressure from GCHQ. He goes on to say: 'For those who do care, White and Matthew Green, who teaches cryptography at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, have embarked on an ambitious effort to clean up the mess — one that needs help. They have created a non-profit organization called OpenAudit.org, which aims to recruit experts to provide technical assistance for security projects in the public interest, especially open-source security software.'"
Peddle your hatred of academia somewhere else. Most scientists live paycheck-to-paycheck with the constant uncertainty over funding caused by competitive bidding.
Yeah, keep attacking those "lefties" while the public continues to be robbed by the bankers and other corrupt businesses. People like you are what is wrong with this country by worrying more about the boogeymen "lefties" over the people who are really ruining this country.
If you imagine that I'm a supporter of the cronyism that banks and other corporations consider business as usual, then you know absolutely nothing about me. Academia is the subject at hand, not banking.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
American academia is lousy with left-wing sycophants, who know full well that their inflated salaries are supported by government interference in the student loan market, and taxpayer-supported direct funding. If more than a handful of them spoke up, they'd find out just how easily their overlords can snatch that titty away.
obnoxious as fuck signing of post removed
I don't think you quite get how tenure works.
I'm curious, who SHOULD remain silent on government hacking?
I don't agree with the ad hominem attacks or his logic, however he does have a point. The costs of education have greatly outstripped inflation, even at state institutions. When this happens, I guarantee that some people are bilking the system.
The bad part is that it is really going to damage the US in the long run. In our post industrial economy, intellectual ability will be the best export, and that future is being marginalized as the investment is growing out of the average person's reach.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
No wonder you get no respect from academia, you earned none spouting Republican victimstance fantasies.
"lousy with left-wing sycophants" - This gives away your position on the spectrum of politics and insolence, rather than saying something about the people you refer to.
"inflated salaries are supported by government interference in the student loan market" - Nearly every academic I know takes at least a 25% salary cut by not being in the industry but being in academia. Good academic hires in the industry are prized and usually lofted to high positions. Academic positions prerequisite a PhD, for which in the US the drop out rate is 50% on an average.
I agree as far as private institutions go. Of public institutions, I've only looked into the University of California system in detail, and it's definitely not true there. If you take the total UC system budget and divided by total undergraduates, per-student cost of education has gone down by about 20% since the 1980s. Why, then, you might ask, has tuition gone up? Because per-student state funding for the UC system has gone down by 60%. Tuition hikes make up the gap between cost reduction (20%) and funding reduction (60%). They aren't covering any kind of cost increase.
Yeah, making it harder for students to get loans is really going to work in their favor :)
Based on the population attending college, and the population who has attended in the United States, you're looking at something like 20% of the U.S. could be impacted by those types of actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_the_United_States
Good luck getting re-elected.
Where did I point to a single side? I mentioned neither political side because such a game only serves as a distraction.
Bush and Ronald Reagan were/are a lefties?
Most scientists live paycheck-to-paycheck
Only an elite handful possess the secret to being dead inbetween paychecks.
"Vlad Dracul, PHD" Mondays on Fox.
The government can put a heck of a lot of pressure on an individual for not cooperating. Everything from being blacklisted to jailed on spurious charges. Truthfully, I don't think I would have said a word once they started turning the thumb screws; metaphorically or otherwise.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
>> why researchers have remained largely silent in the wake of the revelation that (US gov does bad thing)
Just follow the money to...federal research grants. Even if an individual professor decided to rock the boat, their local university would do their best to shut them up.
Related: http://www.aipg.org/students/pdf/So%20you%20want%20to%20be%20a%20professor.pdf
George D. Klein - former professor: " A professor is viewed as a profit center by university administrators...Faculty members will survive as
a professor if she/he is awarded lots of grants with lots of over-head for the university coffers..."
Also: http://www.academicmatters.ca/2012/11/the-quiet-campus-the-anatomy-of-dissent-at-canadian-universities/
As far as I know Reagan didn't defend more government, and he was the first to admit that governments are poor regulators. Bush was a demagogue and his position about basically anything changed with the wind.
Pah! Fox stealing jokes again! A clear ripoff of NBC's Vladimir Acula, M.D., back in 2006.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Given that no documents have been released showing that the NSA intentionally weakened Dual_EC_DRBG other then Bruce Schnier swearing up and down he totally saw it (he may be a good cryptographer, how good is he at reading and understanding internal memos of an intelligence agency? Why have these memos not been released, even in a redacted form if they contain other sensitive info?)
Everyone already knew it was weak. The NIST specification notes (circumspectly) that there's a possible weakness and outlines means to fix it (by generating new factors for it). What exactly does the Guardian think academics should be doing?
You do understand academia's purpose, right?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When this happens, I guarantee that some people are bilking the system.
We also know that whoever it is isn't the faculty: If you adjust for inflation, the change in faculty salaries over the last 5 years is somewhere between 0 and -5%.
The costs that have been going up dramatically include:
- Buildings, specifically the kinds of buildings that help sell a college to potential students like gyms and newer dorms that are more like living off campus rather than a small room to yourself + a roommate.
- Administration and student services. For example,
- Athletics, which are in some schools a huge business. In many states, the highest paid government employee is the head coach of the state university's football team (e.g. Ohio State's Urban Meyer rakes in $4.3 million a year, approximately 30 times the salary of the governor).
Also quite relevant for publicly funded institutions is that public funding for those institutions has been dropping like a rock.
I am officially gone from
what you meant is stay hungry, stay foolish...
- Administration and student services. For example,
Oops - For example, writing tutors to ensure you finish your sentence before you hit "Submit".
Actually, where I was going with that is that a lot of schools have doubled or tripled the number of Deans of Students, counselors, Student Affairs staff, and so on.
I am officially gone from
IFIP has issued a statement on the issue. Excerpt:
There is reason to believe that major practical pillars of trust in the Internet, e.g. the trustworthiness of relevant communication nodes and the security of cryptographic implementations in the web such as SSL, are being intentionally weakened in a systematic way at the behest of government organizations and other major actors in the field. This is endangering and undermining the fabric of the Internet and the Information Society, and contradicts the claim of those actors to be trusted with e.g. sensitive personal information. Moreover, any deliberately introduced weakening or backdoor is equally exploitable by (ostensibly) legitimate and illegitimate third parties alike.
You seem to have missed the point. You claimed thay bank bailouts were only done by lefties. Yet Reagan did a $160 billion bailout after the savings and loan collpase and Bush (with lots of non-lefty support) with TARP. Oh and shoulf we also ignore all the deficit spending by Reagan who within his own administration turned us into the biggest debtor and increased the debt as a percentage of GDP from 26.2 to 40.9%.
He may have claimed to be against what you say but his spending actions speak otherwise.
Well, if you want to see research done without government (public) funding
He didn't say that. He said;
I want nothing more than to see academia liberated from government control
The idea behind public research, was to fund worthwhile research that would not otherwise get funding and then back off and let them do their ting without fear of reprisals. You know, independent. A noble ideal, that sadly, in this severely bifurcated society, is almost impossible.
One possible reason for the silence is that academic researchers get most of their money from the Government, and certainly cryptographers are funded through the three letter agencies (DoD, DHS, CIA, NSA, etc.). Why on Earth would they speak up and potentially ruin their academic careers? You can be outspoken when you are high-profile and have already made full Professor and have a comfortable life. If you're an assistant or associate professor, you're not rocking the boat too much if you want to keep going. Get on the bad side of a funding agency and you can kiss a fruitful career good bye in academic research.
The open-audit link seems to be to a piece of software that is unrelated to the text of the summary. Rather than being anything related to people willing to help audit software, it's actually a tool for auditing your network.
In addition, whilst it does seem to be GPL, you need to provide a name, and email to download it.
Actually, it would.
The problem comes from bankruptcy laws. Banks were having a fit because students would get loans, and when they graduate, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven. The showboat case for this was people graduating as medical doctors, declaring bankruptcy, then getting a high paying job. Banks went to the government to 'fix' this problem and the fix was: Student loans are immune to bankruptcy. If you get a student loan, you will pay it back, even if that means you will have your McPaycheck garnished.
This now means that banks have little to no risk to their loans. Why would they refuse any loan? If the student is successful or not, either way, they get paid. A kid that gets straight D's in school and wants to major in "Classical Nintendo" Sure! Here's money with a nice interest rate.
Now we have banks giving money anybody who wants it, demand for higher education goes up. When demand goes up and supply stays the same... prices go up. Prices go up? Get a loan!
It's a self-feeding model that all started with crony-capitalism. Banks and Government got in bed together. Now I don't blame the banks for complaining... it is a problem. If I lent off a ton of money for students to become doctors, and they kept stiffing me, I'd be pissed. But the Government gave the Banks too sweet of a deal. They gave them a win-win.
What if the banks had a 10 year probation window on student loan bankruptcies instead? If a student declares bankruptcy, the loan is put on hold for 10 years with no interest. If during that 10 year time, the student finds a job that could may payments, the loan sticks. If they can't after 10 years, the loan is forgiven. Banks are protected from those "evil doctors" getting hefty loans then dumping them... Students are protected from not being able to find a job afterwards. The loan (and cost of the education) must reflect the job that is received in the end. Students with poor grades, and majors that aren't in demand are less likely to get loans, as they are now risky to the bank. All of this should lower costs of education.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
Nope. I didn't claim such thing. I claimed that bank bailouts were made by governments. I also claimed that those who defend governments as an effective measure against bank or any corporate abuse, which are basically the left, are delusional.
How it works, or how it's supposed to work?
It doesn't really matter if you've got tenure if you can't get the grant money to hire graduate students to do your research, and if your institution is actively encouraged to pursue studies that diverge from what your preliminary findings hint might be the real answer.
What ends up happening is that yes, you've still got tenure, and you end up getting saddled with a bunch of introductory first-year classes and no research funding or equipment. You also get your TA budget cut.
Tenure only means they aren't able to fire you without probable cause.
Plus, there's the huge number of people who do research specifically to get that coveted tenure at an institution -- and many (most?) will have no problem doing some "suggested" research to get to that position where they can start doing the research they actually want to do. Of course, there are usually fewer tenure slots than there are tenure track positions, so the result is that you get significantly more "suggested" research being done than hands-off objective research.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if you've got a tenured position if the government cuts off funding to your university. They'll find ways (like some of the ones mentioned above) to get you to leave.
Um, to teach students new things?
Although these days, they are more closely intermingled than ever.
Does it hurt being that dumb?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
The cost of education has outpaced the cost of health care FFS.
Every single one of us has felt the hesitation to speak out agianst what the NSA is doing lest be experience some sort of retaliation, typically being mechanically put on a "list" what is used in other contexts for other decisions. The most basic one is getting on the "no fly list" but one imagines that other lists exist also, for instance, the "do not fund research" list.
THAT'S what a chilling effect is. It's a self perpetuating thing, because the more dissent is stifled, the more the faux consensous becomes reality, the more license the chillers see themselves as having been given by society.
I'll never forget the CIA film of Saddam Hussein assembling Anyone Who's Anyone In Iraq into an auditorium then calling out names of individuals, who , when they appropriately stood up having been addressed, were escorted away by security personnel to their summary executions.
As soon as the luminaries understood what was happening, they all stood and started to applaud this monster, chanting his name, swearing fidelity at the top of their lungs, hoping that such would make it less likely that they would ever appear on any such list and, if their name was on The List, they might somehow induce a last minute change of mind.
That's the chilling effect of compiling lists of people and assigning them properties- "enemy", "hub", "individual of special concern should X Y or Z be happening".
Every single one of us, whether we admit it or not, has felt a pause, a fear, the need to calculate and perhaps somehow soften or even self censor what we're saying WRT the government and the NSA for fear of such lists and their possible future consequences.
This is one of the most insidious and well documented effects of surveillance and no one is immune, and- and this is significant- they know it.
This is why the ability to spy on anyone all the time without anyone outside of people you command, or who fear you, knowing what you're doing has to go. This is why total transparency into who does what when why for how long without a scintilla of exception needs to be implemented into the spy agencies. We need spies and spying because we have real enemies who really want to do unspeakably evil things and will given the chance. We have to stop those people. In order to achieve that, we need to stop the spy agencies using the spy agencies to undermine their own democracy however inadvertently. If they were capable of doing this, then they wouldn't have hounded Binney and Drake and Kiriakou ; they would have listened to them.
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/08/07/imprisoned-cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-totality-of-punishment-is-not-limited-to-a-prison-sentence/
Right now, the biggest threat to the continued effectiveness of our spy agencies is the culture which has ascended and become the dominant one in the those spy agencies.
You do understand academia's purpose, right?
Of course. Co-ed porn!
"Tell us how you feel. If you have any criticisms you've been bottling up, then please write about them in journals, or better yet discuss them with your friends over an electronic communications medium. We'd hate to go unaware of any people with 'interesting' viewpoints." - The NSA.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Only in the US would someone compare government funding of higher education to the Soviet Union.
Both empires made academia serve their rulers. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Not silent: drafting. Planning. Analysing. Discussing. Coding. Working.
There's a lot more to it than Dual_EC_DRBG: that's just the most obvious, neon-sign "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A BACKDOOR" backdoor. Funding document leaked by Snowden specifically states public key algorithms. I can match that directly: The NIST/SecP curves were generated by Jerry Solinas of the NSA from SHA-1 hashes with no known source. Yeah, they're totally dodgy, although not perhaps in the obvious ways (it may be that they're specified in ways that make them excruciatingly hard to implement correctly without fucking up: timing attacks; random source; curve point validation; perhaps unknown attacks associated with discriminants? NSA do have a head-start on EC). ECDSA and DSA too; the big hole is very simply that pesky random number thing - as Sony know to their cost. Makes me wonder about a couple of other things too.
djb and Tanja Lange are working on new algorithms to replace them, which are 100% non-NSA and actually also really really fast. http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ - EdDSA with Ed25519 (aka Curve25519 - same Montgomery curve, more efficient/useful Twisted Edwards representation) and/or Curve3617 (pure Edwards, 414-bit size, 200-bit security) are absolutely top contenders to replace ECDSA and ECDHE and are better in every single way. Tanja's even come up with a way to turn encode curve points, on the safecurves, in a way that the output looks truly random, if we need that (explicitly stated use case: censorship/protocol fingerprinting evasion, could see uses in other areas too).
AES-128-GCM seems okay, if you have hardware implementations, but has difficulties running in O(1) free of timing attacks in software. ChaCha20_Poly1305 is a djb ciphersuite proposed by Adam Langley which does much better - it's a replacement for RC4 (which is definitely 100% no contest broken in realtime by Nation State Adversaries, we're quite sure about that now) and is probably a better AEAD, to be honest, than GCM, in my opinion. Live on Google servers, and in Chrome dev builds, right now. Draft in consideration. ChaCha20's Salsa20's successor, an eSTREAM finalist; ChaCha20 was used to build the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE and got a lot of cryptanalytic attention through that. Best attack (truncated differential cryptanalysis) 6 of 20 rounds, surprisingly simple ARX construct easy to analyse with no nasty surprises, fast as hell especially with any kind of SIMD, great differential and linear resistance: can't say fairer than that!
These are among the algorithms we're going to use to rebuild all this. We have trust models to fix, too, which are closer to the root of the Big Problem - more transparent auditing, pinning with DANE and DNSSEC, there's a lot of possible things we could do to harden all that, and we're going to do all that. And the protocols can be improved significantly too, and we're working on that: things like encrypting the ClientHello from the very beginning WILL be part of TLS 1.3, flying pigs be damned.
We have a lot of work ahead of us rebuilding all this, and it's going to take a long time. Needs to be done very carefully, openly, and transparently. Feel free to come and help (if you know what the fuck you're doing).
I'm not pulling my punches. (I haven't so far, as you might see if you look me up.) I want to make sure the right choices are made for the right reasons, and GCHQ and NSA can kiss my ass. As engineers, we try to be non-political, but that doesn't mean we can't be really pissed at literally being double-crossed and lied to, and attacked by the people (ostensibly) whose job it is to protect us. I am very, very bitterly angry with them for fucking up their COMSEC mission to further their SIGINT mission: it's nothing less than a billion-dollar funded betrayal of national and international security, from a technical perspective, and one that we have to go and fix - because they won't, and we could never trust them to anyway.
We're not silent. We're busy. Other people can talk about political ramifications. We'll work to solve the technical ones. We'll meet in the middle. /akr
This NSA document published at the NYT states explicitly that the NSA is attempting to "Influence policies, standards and specifications" for public key encryption, and given that the project described in that same document is about expanding the NSA's access to data, rather than increasing the security of that data, this proves that the NSA is working to weaken, not enhance, public key crypto. That NSA document doesn't specifically mention DUAL EC DRBG, but this NYT story does say that the Snowden documents somewhere list DUAL EC DRBG as one backdoored technology.
Of course DUAL EC DRBG is only one algorithm. How many other algorithms has NSA contributed to? At this point, they're all suspect, because it's obvious now that the NSA is more worried about decrypting communications it intercepts rather than protecting any communications transmitted. So what academics should be doing is independently vetting all widely used encryption technology, starting with anything the NSA is known to be involved with, even peripherally. That is a tall order, and it used to be tin-foil-hat thinking, but like a police officer caught lying under oath causing decades worth of court cases to be thoroughly redone or thrown out, there is no alternative if we want to be sure that nothing else got through.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
Interesting, you solution seems relatively fair, and reasonable. Prediction it will ever be implemented: 0.05%
Most people are unintelligent, then?
A person is very smart. People are dumb and scared; they say it in MIB so it must be true.
So should academics use the same research and release standards with security bugs/exploits as government "hacks"?
The general consensus is that researchers that find vulnerabilities in commercial software at least notify the vendor and give them a chance to mitigate the problem before releasing a potential attack blue-print to the universe. Should researchers notify government entities before releasing their research on their "hacks", or are they to treat the government as a black-hat?
It's an interesting choice either way... One way you are colluding the other way you apparently might be considered a traitor (or hero depending on your politics).
What a non-story. The flaws in Dual EC DRBG were widely published shortly after release.
The backdoor was first published by Dan Shumow and Niels Ferguson in August 2007.
Bruce Schneier wrote the same year:
My recommendation, if you're in need of a random-number generator, is not to use Dual_EC_DRBG under any circumstances. If you have to use something in SP 800-90, use CTR_DRBG or Hash_DRBG.
This was common knowledge if you had more than a passing interest in cryptography. I think TFA is mistaken when it says that it didn't get enough attention. The reason academics didn't take it more seriously is that it was seen as so obvious, it was mostly harmless shenanigans.
You would only use it in a serious cryptographic product if you were an incompetent crackhead, or if the NSA had stuffed your ass full of money.
Incidentally, RSA, the large security firm, shipped it in a serious cryptographic product for years and years.
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
Check the stats on state institutions, the states have been removing support for close to 20 years now. Research institutions have to pander to the federal government for research money....but that too is drying up because apparently Washington believes research grows on trees, and fundamental research has all been done by now.
The consequence is that research institutions have made a mad scramble for star professors who can bring in enough to cover their salary. This puts pressure on the private institutions and raises the cost of education in general because with federal research money drying up, there isn't enough to go around.
Teaching institutions have also taken it in the neck from state legislatures. The legislatures figure students can get federal aid and/or loans, so why should the states ante up.
The problem for your basic bog-standard legislator is that s/he has no understanding of science. This means not only can they not understand why the U.S. should fund basic research, they cannot explain to their constituents why they should fund it.
Ah, but you say, the Defense Department, they still believe in basic research, they'll fund it. Nope, not anymore. DoD has been taken over by bean counters just like companies. They don't have science degrees, they have bean counting degrees.
There was several years ago an email spammed to just about everyone in DoD. It purported to solve the research problem. The solution was to simply cherry pick available research and use it. Soooo....after a few years when all we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Research Titanic, the rest of the world will bound past the U.S. and Congress will blame everyone but themselves.
Not to continue to feed the troll, but that doesn't sit with:
but female students would be a distraction
Your arguing for the opposite. Making it easier to get loans help divert that money towards schools.
The original argument was about making it harder to get loans to take money away from schools. That won't get you re-elected.
As for the forgiveness of debt. People's beef is with banks, not the government. It's also pretty hard to even blame the bank when it's so much easier to blame yourself. You'd have to be pretty dense to think, man, I shouldn't have to pay this money back that I borrowed. It's the governments fault I can't get a job. Never mind that I barely passed, haven't looked for alternatives, and also ignored the advise of my advisers that I should pick a different career path as I'm not doing well.
Nah, debt forgiveness is something I'm not in favor of except in cases of death. I worked my ass off to cover the cost of selling my home at half it's value during the housing crash when others were short-selling (to relatives or acquaintances no less). I signed the paperwork for the loan. I agreed to pay it back. End of story.
The only thing I could see as an acceptable middle-ground is staying the loan until someone can get on their feet. Once they do, they should have to pay it back.
I shouldn't have to pay higher interest rates because people are taking advantage of the system (and me in the process).
Basically, University administrators have become academic political officers, responsible for implementing party^H^H^H^H^Hcorporate directive and ensuring that research, teaching, and indeed knowledge itself conforms with orthodox sovie^H^H^H^H^Hcorporate ideology.
May the Maths Be with you!
Even among academics, most people believe that these government activities are in the public interest.
Y'all are a minority. Deal with it.
Do you understand that in order to make it easier for the NSA to read "terrorists" email they've made it easier for criminals to hack your bank account?
Is that in the public interest?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Perfect thread hijack. You working for the NSA?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I don't understand why this is news at all.
Like I said in another post, The Scorpion and the Frog.
The NSA exists to protect us on their terms, not ours. It serves their purposes to weaken encryption far more than it does to protect it.
They are acting in accordance with their nature, and in the complete absence of any real regulations on their activities. Those that would regulate it are shut up quite nicely regardless of which of the 3 branches of government they are in..
Big Data and all that fancy analysis is just way way way way to much of an enticement for them to possibly stop. Seriously, it's like walking into a room with a bunch of naked, giggling, and drunk cheerleaders.
Sure I did. I blamed leftists because they defend more government, more regulations, and most of all more regulatory bodies, which is exactly what allows bit corporations and banks to practice their Cronyism to its full potential.
Both left and right wing governments bailed out banks. The problem is not specifically with leftist governments, but with leftist ideology, which tends to require more and more government, which always implies in more regulatory bodies to be bought, subverted and used to ensure that corporations stay unchallenged in their interests. The bigger the state gets the more powerful corporations and banks become.
Weakening encryption, means it weakens it for every single attacker not just the NSA part of the portfolio is defending and protecting those institutions and individuals that will using that encryption, so how it's something, totally and utterly idiotic and mind bogglingly stupid to do. Seriously what kind of shit brained professionally paranoid idiots would weaken security to make things easy to hack, when they are meant to be defending and preventing those things from being hacked. I surprised one section of the NSA didn't put out an assassination order to the CIA targeting the other section of the CIA for treasonous weakening of US security infrastructure.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Not true. Clothes are designed to hide flaws in the human body. Most women are flawed to some degree. Air brushing models and makeup to hide some of them have been around for quite a while.
Now i could understand your conclusion about him maybe being gay if he said something along the lines of a man in clothing is more attractive than a naked woman but he didn't.
I don't think he claimed it was leftist government rather that it was government the left supports. Its a small but significant difference as the government can be left or right and its the left that wants more of it.
The bigger the state(government) the smaller the citizen. What you said is also true but neglected where it leaves us.
If governments don't reign in corporate abuses with regulations and oversight, who do you think should? Corporations have demonstrated they cannot self-regulate and cannot self-oversee. Cronyism is the default, unless prevented by someone/something more powerful than the corporation.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Interesting, you solution seems relatively fair, and reasonable. Prediction it will ever be implemented: 0.05%
Optimist.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Physicists are both alive and dead between paychecks.
There is no easy way to reign in corporate abuses, but the truth is that bigger governments make it worse not better. Corporations of the size we have today are a result of concessions, government barriers to competition and cronyism for example. They would never have achieved the size and power they have today without government help.
Freer markets do not make corporation abuse to disappear, but they make it more difficult for them to turn into monopolies and oligopolies. Add some general laws to that (and never regulation bodies or bureaucratic entry barriers please) to prevent and punish the most obnoxious practices, make the judicial system less costly to the normal citizen and quicker and let the people sue when they feel wronged.
That, in my opinion would have at least some chance of working, unlike regulatory bodies, which have none.
I've always been a glass is 0.05% full kinda guy when it comes to politics.