Slashdot Mirror
One for the Kids
Reprinted with permission.
CyberWire Dispatch // copyright © October 8, 1999 // All rights reserved
Jacking in from the "Mr. Rodgers" port:
By Lewis Z. Koch
CWD Special Correspondent
The Department of Justice has either lost its collective mind, lost all sense of its own history or is just too damned busy trying to figure out who really gave the order to waste a couple dozen kids in the Waco debacle.
The DOJ has produced a "Hacking Story" kids web page and on it they have a cartoon woman holding "the scales of justice" - only she's not blindfolded.
The page also has a bewigged judge, peering over his glasses, looking stern, squinting down approvingly as perhaps the thumb screws are tightened on another hapless hacker who has fallen into the clutches of a Justice Department searching for another "teachable moment."
Now -- and I am not making this up - there is an "Internet Do's and Don'ts" on this kids page subtitled "Think about it."
Think about this: your tax dollars paid for this.
The "Think About It" section starts off, "People who break into computers ('hackers') destroy property and records and invade privacy. What's privacy worth to you?"
That's a very good question boys and girls. To understand it, how about a bit of a history lesson first.
Perhaps we should we ask what privacy is worth of the family of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. whose privacy the FBI invaded for years, bugging his bedrooms and his phone conversations. What was Dr. King's privacy worth? Or the other people whose privacy was invaded as they interacted with Dr. King?
Or are there two standards of privacy, boys and girls - one for the government rule-breakers and one for hacker rule-breakers?
This is called a "double standard" boys and girls. Can we spell "hypocritical?" Perhaps we should do an Internet search with the key words "black bag jobs" and "FBI." (And for extra credit, try "Iran-Contra.")
The page goes on to ask, "What information about you (or your parents) do you think is private: medical information?..."
Good question. But perhaps an even better one to ask, boys and girls, is why is all that medical data available in the first place? Why isn't it encrypted? You know, in code, so no one can read it? We'll come back to that, later.
It might be that the insurance companies want the data to be open, so they can easily read it as it goes from Internet site to Internet site, medical data traveling across the Internet, just as carefree as can be. The insurance companies want to make it easy for themselves, so they can keep track of all the medical records.
Precautions to keep it out of the hands of, say, the FBI or private detectives, or people who can monitor all those records speeding about the Net would cost money, and insurance companies need lots of money, so they can give part of it to politicians. The insurance companies like to share and we all know sharing is a good thing, isn't it, boys and girls?
Yes, Jenny, you have a question? What, Aetna doesn't share with you? Shame on them. Maybe you should run for Congress. Yes, you'll get extra credit.
Maybe the DOJ should put up a web page for insurance companies, asking them all kinds of fun questions. Inquiring little minds want to know.
The DOJ kids page would have children worry about hackers knowing what grade you got in English or Math or how much money you have and how much money you owe and your letters to a friend and a boyfriend or girlfriend. Are those good questions boys and girls?
Well, on the one hand, most fifth graders, frankly, don't give a shit (oops, sorry about that boys and girls) -- aren't all that concerned about grades or how much freaking money an eleven year old is making. And as to the money they owe... please, let's not get carried away boys and girls.
The DOJ kids page goes on like some blithering 3rd grade teacher in Kansas set to make a fulsome argument for creationism, "When you write something, how important is it to be able to find it again...How important is it that data in computers not be altered...[like] grades?..."
Maybe next week, boys and girls, we can all sit down and write a Freedom of Information request and find out how many people worked the wonderful prose on the kids page. And then we can total up how much they make a year in our special math class! I'll bet it goes way, way, way over $100,000. You think that is a lot of money, don't you? Do you know the expression "chump change" boys and girls?
Time to write another letter, boys and girls. This one goes to the Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley. You know him from your fun history books, the son of Richard J. Daley, who had his Red Squad break into peoples' homes, bug their bedrooms and offices phones looking for information for decades until a Federal Judge had to tell them to stop.
Mayor Daley wanted to know all about people who disagreed with him. And that's the same Richard J. Daley whose handpicked State's Attorney's police murdered two Black Panther members while they slept in their beds.
Well, Richard J's son, William M., is the man who, along with lots and lots of FBI agents and CIA agents and NSA agents, has been fighting for weak encryption rather than strong encryption. Strong encryption, boys and girls, prevents people from reading your personal correspondence or records. Now the Department of Justice wants to bug your computers to prevent you from utilizing strong encryption the way it is supposed to work. Weak encryption makes it so much easier to read your grades.
Let's have a show of hands. Who wants the government to know everything about us and for us to not know anything about the government? Anyone? Anyone? Later, let's all look up "data mining" on the Internet. We can probably find out lots of cool things about your parents that they don't want you to know.
Now let's talk about the best part of the "Think About it" page:
"Some hackers think that if they 'don't alter anything' or 'don't mean to alter anything' they haven't done any harm. But they are stealing telephone and computer time. They also crash systems so they won't work. How do we use information systems today? What would happen if systems like the air traffic control system or the 911 system suddenly stopped working?"
Now, let's be real good students, boys and girls. What's real strange about those ideas? Remember when we learned that word "stereotype?" It's bad to stereotype, isn't it boys and girls? Rachel or Brian, can you tell me what the stereotype is here? Riiiiighht. Good. Both of you! You want to know who, exactly, are those "some hackers" the page refers to. Do they have names? The kids page seems to be telling us that all hackers are bad.
Well, one group of hackers calls themselves L0pht. And they have cool names like Silicosis, Brian Oblivion, John Tan, Dr. Mudge, Kingpin, Space Rogue, Weld Pond and Dildog. Some of them also belong to a hacker group called "Cult of the Dead Cow." Isn't that a great name to scare a U.S. Attorney! Almost makes you want to be a hacker, doesn't it?
You get to testify before the United States Senate and describe how thoughtless the United States government is when it tries to hide software vulnerabilities. You know what? United States Senators were so impressed they even autographed their own pictures for them! Isn't that cool? Tomorrow we'll look up the words "duplicity" and "stupidity."
So I guess the lesson is "some hackers" can be good hackers, unless the DOJ kids page authors or the DOJ itself wants to challenge the United States Senate. What do you think? Maybe MTV would even do a celebrity death match segment DOJ v. the Senate.
How about those last ideas boys and girls, about systems crashing? Why is it some people have become centa-billionaires or just plain billionaires by making computer software full of flaws and mistakes and bugs, causing the programs to crash all by themselves or to be crashed by some silly 16-year-old script kiddie? Are these very rich men ever asked why a multitude of software users is made to endure their bug-ridden products?
No, Rebecca, no need to answer, that was what we call a "rhetorical" question.
What do you think your parents would do to General Motors or Ford if their car or truck totally self destructed by itself or fell apart at the slightest fender bump?
Yes, Brian? Oh, I see, well I am sorry about your father's Yugo...
You know the concept of "bankruptcy?" Don't you think it's only fair, boys and girls, that the software billionaires should shoulder some of the responsibility for the flaws in their product rather than putting the blame on the heads of "some hackers?" Maybe the Justice lady should put her blindfold back on and administer justice without fear or favor. What do you think, children?
Tomorrow's assignment, boys and girls, is to read the latest issue of Phrack, write a synflood script and wear your "Free Kevin Mitnick" T-shirts at assembly.
Yes, Brian? Of course you get extra credit for your creative use of "Back Orifice," but tomorrow, please restore the school's network to its rightful owner. Thank you. Class dismissed.
[To subscribe to CWD, send a message to:
Majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu
In the first line of the message put:
Subscribe CWD]
The doj is messed up.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Is this a rant or a newsletter ?
The "couple of kids" at Waco were armed not only with semi-automatic rifles but also with full auto mods to their weapons and grenades..i may not support the notion of what the government did was correct, but i'd stop from stating they were a coupla kids.
And since when was routing script kiddie sniffing and cracking ok ? The government doesnt do that, either.
This is why I read /. . Thank you for bringing this to our attention! It's important for us all to be reminded that we're not the only group fighting for the future of the Net.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
just wanted to correct the spelling and /. doesnt have a delete function. damn...got posted twice accidentally.
Maybe one of those evil hackers could modify the DOJ's kids web page to include a link to this article--just so the inquiring fifth grader could get both sides of the story.
The Autonomous Cow. Moo.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
IMHO, if the Justice Department wants to start looking into computer crime, how about looking into how a *lot* of computer companies (and by no means do I just mean MS, although they are one of the major perps) put out buggy software and then sell the security or software patches?
So, you either have to buy the "upgrade" or face having your data deleted or corrupted by a hacker or by a bad bit of code. In the tone of the article, "Can we say 'Blackmail'? I knew we could." Wasting time and resources on crackers is such BS -- maybe one in ten thousand ever get caught or in trouble, and meanwhile these crooked computer software companies are costing the economy billions in wasted money.
Put a few CEOs in prison and let 'em rot for a few years without a trial. I'm sure that meets with the DOJ's blind-justice-for-all philosophy.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Give that page credit, they are trying to achieve their mission in an intelligent manner...
Inculcating kids with the "right" behavior is a valid purpose for the department of justice... most of us do stop at red lights late at night when there are no cars nearby...
Granted the page does not get into the finer points that this article brought up, but telling a 5 year old "programmers are good, hackers are bad" is easier than saying "some hackers are good, some are bad"...
I doubt the DOJ thinks crackers are anything other than poor white people...
There is not that much that is highly objectionable there... I think the page did a fairly poor job, but Internet crime is not that page's focus anyway...
The arguements given are not intelligent, but what do you think a 5-year old will read, a list of do's and don'ts or a long persuasive thesis...
Don't forget that the main way that kids will come in contact with this page is NOT on their own, but their teachers/parents taking them there, and giving a guided tour... how many of you have been to this site on your own, its the last place I would point my browser, if it had not been for this article...
Yes the DOJ is trying to indocrinate, but so what? that is what it is there for... that is what the carrot side of crime prevention is all about...
(I am not saying its pretty, but its prettier than Waco, the stick side of law enforcement...)
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
leave it to the DOJ to protect americans from themselves. How long before the DEA(Drug Enforcement Agency) is joined by the IEA(Internet Enforcement Agency)? 2 agencies like this could toatlly destroy the concept of personal freedom and the right to privacy. And just like the DEA's DARE program has filled little heads with propaganda in a most nazi-like way. and torn apart famillies buy telling little timmy that 'its okay to turn in your parents if the smoke weed'; so too would this emmerging campaign ingrain a sense of distrust and seperatism as kids are asked to 'take sides' and rat on their prodigal friends. children in their early teens have enourmous potential with computers beacause they thirst for knowledge, that is a great asset, unfortunately, kids will eventually realize the truth behind these programs and these little brainwashed 'frankenstiens' will turn on their masters in the end.
If you go to the DoJ page, you'll find out that the DoJ thinks highly of New Sports Equipment in your school. It seems that unless you rat out your friend, the school can't buy any New Sports Equipment. That would be a terrible thing if the jocks didn't get their New Sports Equipemnt.
I wish I'd known about this newsletter before. This is good stuff.
What the government does not seem to comprehend is that all the preventative measures in the world won't stop the free nature of the internet. Controlling the internet is similar to the old Sanskrit mental exercise.
Try to stop your mind from wandering. Attempt to concentrate on one thought and no other. Not too easy is it?
The old Sanskrit writers described this phenomenon as the 'caged monkey.' The caged monkey will flitter around the cage incessently; attempting it to stop is more difficult than reigning in the horses pulling a runaway chariot.
The internet is the home of millions of caged monkeys. Try to prevent even one from bouncing and dancing from this place to that. It is an impossiblity internet communications are not centralized and they will not be.
The government should not attempt to control us on this medium. By doing so, it may find itself an obsolete institution that people no longer need or want because people will have collaborated to obtain the services the government stopped giving. We should put the government in its place.
If you look at this DOJ page, it mentions these hackers breaking in to the phone swith and rebooting the machines. Apparently, this brought the machines down for hours. /bullshit/
don't i clearly recall that when AT&T had their little network problem that resulted from some dumbass not putting some { } in the code that the real issue had to do with the speed of the reboot.
the machines would crash, because of the aforementioned bug, and then reboot _in about 6 seconds._ And the problem was that when they would come back online they crashed other machines... or something...
Heading off-topic, but... The only evidence of any full-auto weapons at Waco was the weapons in use by the Federales. All video tapes and accounts released which show fire from INSIDE all show the same thing - single shots at a time. No evidence of grenades was found. There were wild reports of both, but none of the physical evidence supported those claims. There were Hellfire attachments for some semi-auto rifles, which are perfectly legal and the weapon is still semi-automatic. (It generates the illusion of automatic fire by cycling the trigger rapidly). There was no evidence of THEIR use by the Branch Davidians at any time during the siege. (Which makes sense because they are fun to use but not very accurate).
and it seems as if watching a girl type her password will get you laid. or maybe I'm reading too much into that.
The page fails on the #1 criteria: Kids won't buy it.
Give your average intelligence hacker (with the correct usage), they will take one look at this page and laugh.
The second point they fail on is the fact that crackers and script kiddies typically don't give a crap about the morality of their actions. This site can't hope to compete with the sites that advocate malicious scripting and cracking. The "Mr. Rodgers" comment in the editorial seems all too apt.
There is one example of punishment being meted out and it goes to the kid that crashed a phone system by accident. While it certainly is prudent to understand the repercussions of your actions it hardly seems like a good example since it is rare that anybody (let alone a child) believes they don't know what they are doing. A better example would have been something involving a deliberate cracking.
Mixed in the lame crap is this little paragraph:
"DON'T try to break into computers. It's not a game. It's a crime and it's an invasion of privacy. Computers often contain sensitive information. How would you feel if someone broke into a computer and changed your grades? Deleted your term paper? Cut off your telephone?"
Funny, coming from a group that wants to be able to break into your computer at will. Even if you are able to ignore the hypocrisy, it completely ignores the fact that the only way to be (reasonably) sure a system is secure is to try to hack it. But then if you use NT it's supposed to be solid as a rock right?
Overall, I agree with the editorial. It's phrased a tad more aggresively than I would have done but the points seem to be valid.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Why not make an equivlent site for the DOJ, Senate and various other Government authorities?
:) and that is what i call good use of taxpayer money!
"Lawmaking: do's and don'ts:"
1. Do not make stupid cryptography laws.
2. Do not waste taxpayer's money on stupid sites.
3. Do not feed our childern with bullshit.
4. Above all, try not to be hypocrite.
or,
"Are you a good Legislator?"
1. "my friend D. from the FBI and I wanted to bug people, but it cost a lot of money. then joey found out he can use taxpayer money to do this FOR FREE! but i've heard wasting taxpayers money is bad"
2. "my friend Z from the NSA brags that he can boycott every piece of high-cryptography software from being exported outside of the US. and then, he can toy around with people's basic rights with total disregard to the constitution. he wants me to help him by cancelling the constitution altogether".
or, how about "Stupid laws hurt Senators, making it harder for them to get re-elected"?
The possibilities are limitless
I know this is a little offtopic but phrasing this whole thing as a "lesson" to a group of fictional students is more than a little annoying. The same information could have just as easily be put down in a better format and I would have been able to conecentrate on it. Instead I have to read the phrase "boys and girls" 78 times and I still don't know who Rachel and Brian are. I'm all for personal writing style but this isn't a story, it's supposed to be a news article.
Like I said, this is a little offtopic but I felt I had to say it. Other than the form issues I have, excellent job michael.
If you like computers, don't use your brains to hack systems, invade other people's privacy, and take away their networks. Hacking can get you in a whole lot more trouble than you think and is a completely creepy thing to do. If you're so smart, use that computer to do great things!
Okay, kids.... But don't drink caffeine. That might make you even smarter.
I associate plenty of words when I think of hacker, but "creepy" isn't one of them.
Enough talk... I've got to go "take away someone's network..."
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
Maybe the DEA and the IEA could be a single agency, then we could put tax dollars behind a half-baked IDEA.
Let's back up. Ok, the government spies on me. There's a lot of evidence for and against this idea, but let's assume it to be true. Let's assume the government is the spawn of the devil and does all kinds of evil things to me, my computer, my privacy, my family, and my pets. Does that make it right for kids to break into computers? I think not.
Two wrongs do NOT (And never have) made a single right. The impression I get from this article is that it's ok to break into computers, because the government does it already. This is one of the most unproductive viewpoints I've ever heard.
Perhaps this justice department program could use some re-tooling, but the overall message is correct. Cracking things is bad. It's bad coming from anyone. You do not contribute to the overall solution by doing so yourself.
Why do certain people like to romantcize [c|h]ackers? if someone breaks into a system, and brings down the phone company, they should be punished. they can cause a lot of harm. if 911 goes down, people can die....i find nothing in that worth defending.
yes, the government spies on us. yes, they want weak encryption. so how does that make someone stealing credit cards an honorable thing? our government also assisinates people, so should can i go around murdering those who i do not like? just because the government does bad things, that doesn't mean it's ok for anyone else to, either...
i am not defending the government by any means. but [cr|h]ackers are just as much of a criminal as a thief or a vandal. and trying to say hacking is ok because of "l0pht" or "Cult of the Dead Cow" is poor logic. They do not hack to cause destruction, but to find holes in systems. most [cr|h]ackers and/or script kiddies just want to cause destruction. anyone that breaks into a system, steals info, bring down a system, etc., is a criminal plan a simple. and just because they cost big companies large sums of money, that is in no way "sticking it to the man" or anyhting like that. it accomplishes nothing. you might say it shows the security problems in todays networks, but that does not execuse reckless destruction.
[H|Cr]ackers but be made into hereos, but wait until the steal your credit card numbers, or you can't call 911 because some script kiddie wants to be elite. what "l0pht" does is a great service, but i don't consider them [cr|h]ackers in the sense the govmt web site was talking about.
it's takes real skill and intelligence to create and not destroy.
That Yugo comment was classic. :)
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Cracking is a crime. I won't suggest it ought to be a crime. I won't say I'm happy it's a crime. But it is a crime. AKA illegal, breakin de law, no-no, stoppit.
While cracking is a crime, it is perfectly appropriate for the DOJ to enforce laws against it. One of the most effective measures against criminal activity is preventive education. AKA propaganda, ministry of truth, marketing, flak.
The activities described on the cited page are illegal. The people most commonly engaged in them are young. The DOJ is using the bully pulpit in a means that is just as effective and admirable as the "Just say No" campaign of the 80's. I don't agree with anti-drug laws, and I don't agree with some anti-cracking laws, but I have complete respect for the men and women who must enforce those laws, regardless of their wisdom.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Quentin is a badass. Breakin' into computers, wasting the school's money, depriving the football team of uniforms. Sounds like my kind of guy. Man, I wish I had the *opportunity* to make those kinds of choices when I was growing up. I could use Quentin to change my grades, and his l33t friend Joey to snag me free warez.
wow, thats scary to think the the next campaign slogan might be "Just say NO to Hackers". Maybe some cheesy after school special with little Billy hacking the Grade schools mail server to send anonymous love letters to his teacher... ;) Anyhow, since when did the DoJ adopt morals anyway??
17 times by my count. A bit excessive. But then, CWD has never been known for its august writing style.
Over the years, CWD, in spite of its kick-your-ass, heavy-boozing style, has scooped the more mainstream media on some important issues. Remember when Brock found a student to reverse-engineer the block list of some crummy censorware, and (surprise surprise!) found sites blocked for pretty obviously political reasons?
I look forward to CWD being on slashdot. It deserves the wider readership it's going to get.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
I'll tell you why it's wrong. IT'S NOT THEIR JOB! We pay them to be our checks and balances for the Congress and Prez. Anything else they do with our money (and their time) is beyond scope and wasted. If we need someone to indoctrinate our children, it should be done correctly, through the public schools system like it always has. (yes, that's sarcasm ;)
To be free, think free.
Yes, Brian? Oh, I see, well I am sorry about your father's Yugo...
Now that's what you call some funny shit!!!
hahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Hypocrisy about worrying about "privacy" while at the same time denying privacy to its own citizens, you know, the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" kind of government.
The Martin Luther King part is well documented. J Edgar Hoover detested MLK so much that he fabricated tapes from snippets of illegaly tapped conversations and spread them around to make MLK look like a communist dope peddling paedophile wife beater.
On a personal note, my uncle was wiretapped during the Vietnam war for daring to stop LBJ's "voluntary" $100/month war bond program, and for organizing a union. FBI wiretapped him, asked his neighbors, friends, and co-workers nosy questions, generally intent only on making it obvious he also was a scumbag under investigation.
That's what this rant is all about. Hypocrisy. It's nothing new. It just needs a good rant once in a while.
--
Infuriate left and right
So, it's ok for Joe Hacker to break into my computer, but not the government? I have to say, I'd rather it be the government. They're just looking for evidence to convict me of something, where a hacker could be looking to crash my computer and/or steal my identity.
Granted, the DOJ should have used the term "cracker" rather than "hacker," but most people associate hacking with criminal activity, and more people are familiar with that word.
And, yes, the DOJ is being hypocritical. But look at it from their point of view. I don't think they're out to "get" anybody, they honestly believe they're protecting the "American way of life." Their methods are sometimes underhanded, but their intentions are good. The stuff on their website is intended to be a good lesson for children. What we need to do is support laws that force them to apply those same lessons to their methods. That's the way to fight hyprocrisy, not by saying, "since the government does it, you can too."
human://billy.j.mabray/
human://billy.j.mabray/
"Every good system has a backup." -- Dale Hanchey
At some point, "computer literacy" is going to have to come to mean more than just knowing how to maneuver around a GUI. Security, encryption, and the like are no longer merely technical issues; they are now issues of public policy, and in order for a democratic republic to function, issues of public policy need to be publicly understood.
The average user today is woefully uneducated about how computers work -- how information is represented and stored, how it is transmitted over a network, and so forth -- and thus is unable to make reasoned judgments about related issues. A person who does not understand that his love letters, written in Word, are stored on his hard disk as files cannot understand that a security hole that permits a remote cracker to read files off his hard disk would permit that cracker to read his love letters. A person who does not understand that information travels over a network in packets which can be intercepted cannot understand the need for end-to-end encryption.
I am not sure how to solve this problem. It is clear that the government, and government schools, cannot be expected to educate the populace about those technical issues which have become critical public policy issues. Why? Because government has, time and again, demonstrated that on these issues it prefers an illiterate populace. A computer-illiterate populace will not demand privacy, encryption rights, or other troublesome things.
Perhaps the industry should get directly involved. I'm not sure how well that would work, considering that the biggest names in the industry (Microsoft, for instance) oppose, through their actions, privacy and literacy for the masses.
.
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
/.?
We all know that our government is hypocritical. That is why we have the whole checks and balances thing. One branch can go completely of its rocker, and the other two are supposed to reel them in (sorry about the mixed metaphor). I know that a lot of us like to rant and rave about buggy software and silly laws, but who are you railing against?
No one is perfect. Flawed software comes out because no one realized the extent of the problems in testing. Most of the exploits and security holes in software that I have become aware of are due to such arcane circumstances that I can quite easily envision a QA failure. Bad software just means bad QA, not malicious intent to sell patches.
Maybe MS does put out sloppy code on purpose.
Maybe CDC is wrong to hack at sloppy code.
Maybe we are wrong to use bad code...
How secure is
Has anyone tried to hack it?
Computers can only simulate determinism. ~Hermetic.
The DOJ kids page goes on like some blithering 3rd grade teacher in Kansas
And this article goes on like some blithering 3rd grader. After about the 5th "boys and girls" I gave up. Is this a feeble attempt at making a point or your writing style? Keep me in the 0.56% who don't subscribe, thanks.
Lemme get this straight, though. It's okay to hack 'n crack, but not okay to invade privacy. Okay, you explain that to my four year old.
As for the rest of the so-called article, all I can say is: "Huh?"
Whatever.
Consigned to flames of woe.
IMHO, if the Justice Department wants to start looking into computer crime, how about looking into how a *lot* of computer companies (and by no means do I just mean MS, although they are one of the major perps) put out buggy software and then sell the security or software patches?
That is a very foolish and partisan sentiment. It is also unsound legal thinking. The moment that it becomes illegal or fiscally dangerous to ship unstable software, you will see exactly one thing: less software will be shipped, and the companies that do ship will be huge megaglomerates like Microsoft that can afford to settle a lawsuit. Small developers will have to join the conglomerates in order to preserve their asse(t)s.
If you don't believe me, it is very simple to demonstrate I'm right. Medicine has been going down this path ever since "malpractice" entered the vocabulary of people like yourself. How many small-time doctors do you visit these days? They are a dying breed because they can't afford the insurance or the risk of being sued for accidents beyond their control.
If I could be sued for every bug in every program I have written, I would never publicly release software. It is impossible to track down every bug in software. You are deluded by your hatred for Microsoft if you think otherwise. The greater the complexity, the greater the number of inevitable bugs.
If software harms somebody, then you can sue the maker. If software is buggy, then the market will take care of it. Unless people don't share your opinion of what is acceptably buggy.
I say keep software free and clear. Don't introduce parasitic lawyers into what is, despite griping from people like yourself, very nearly a perfect industry.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Here's the URL for just the "Lady Justice" http://www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/image/kidmain1.gif Maybe they have been inbiding some of the stuff they have been confiscating?!?!
I hope we're talking about the same thing....
IIRC, from the book Expert C Programming, the AT&T bug was due to a switch-case statement in which a break statement had been left out.
In the book, it was presented as an illustration of how fall-through in a switch-case statement could really bite you.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Doesn't it bother anybody that they imply that it is wrong to publish your term paper?
m
check http://www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/do-dont/netizen3.ht
Are they saying that the scientific comunity is BAD???
I publish my papers all the time, if people would refrained from publishing stuff for fear of plagiarism the scientific comunity as we know it would not exist!
personally I think that answer A was the best one!!!
"People who break into computers ("hackers") destroy property and records, and invade privacy."
straight off their 'teach the kids how not to crack/pirate' website. and here we go once again, into the definitions.. hmm, perhaps real dicionaries should have def'ns for cracker and hacker, if they already dont
*shrug*
great article. this is why i come here so often. history lesson, though. justice used to be open eyes. until the french revolution, that is. justice was blindfolded as a protest. over time the meaning has changed. what was once "justice-blinded" has become "impartial justice". perhaps it can even be said that the (myth of) impartiality of justice created some of the very injustice we are concerned with. after all, impartial justice can not tell mitnick from cdc. a fully informed justice that can be partial and take into account social and cultural and technological imperitive would be able to provide a greater degree of discernment. this was an outstanding article, imnsho.
Everybody on the Internet hates religion, okay, we get the idea. Now shut up.
2*0=1*0; 2=1?
Give it up -- it's not all that cute, man...
--
Oh yeah, I think Koresh may have passed a few bad checks too. Yah. That's worth a summary death sentence. And the records of the FBI fuckup were all magically blown up in Oklahoma City. Wow! What a coincidence!
"TOLERANCE: The recognition of and acceptance
of the beliefs, practices or behaviors of
other people that differ from your own."
be tolerent until those that are different are
all dead.
we should not put people in jail for "being
different".
Leaving aside the "do as I say not as I do" arguments (valid as they are) this is only really in that they say
DON'T try to break into computers
instead of
DON'T try to break into other people's computers
Trying to break into your own computer
is just educational. If it had been proposed
to whatever non technical person wrote this
they probably would have even modified it thus.
second they say essentially "do use chat rooms" and then followup with things not to do there.
This is, IMNSHO, bad advice. Chat room are basically a toilet. Always have been and I don't know a way to fix them. I have small children and let them do most anything they want on the net (no net.nanny crap) but they don't need to know IRC exists. The chat areas on the game servers like battlenet and WON are bad enough, though the kids don't hang out there - they play games.
IRC is where the (very few) pederasts lurk and all the other things parents worry about tend to occur. Put that against the fact that 99.99% of everything there is crap and you've got it. They can chat with their friends via things like ICQ that are less public. IRC is occasionally useful enough for an adult or older kid to wade through the "what sex RU" crap that invades even #perl or #c++ - or even for teens to learn to flirt in a semi-safe place (A 16 year old that can be lured by a loony on IRC has more fundamental problems than IRC itself). For the age range these pages are aimed for it is just lose/lose.
Alright I found one more that boils me. On the
"reckless driving" page they say
Lots of kids know enough about computers to hack into big networks, but so what?
AHHHHHHHG! I knew there had to be something here that would 'out' them as the totally freaking stupid DOJ we know and love.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
When I was about 12, my parents upgraded their will, and I got to meet a lawyer for the first time. He had the seal of the state of New York on his wall, and I asked him why the lady was in the blindfold. He said he didn't know.
Later on, I found out why Justice was blindfolded, and have always wondered if he really didn't know, or if he just didn't want to explain it to me.
The worst part was that he had been, at one time, a congressman.
>>>>>>>>> Kvort
-Don't mind me, I'm personality-deficient and mentally-impaired.
Just because some members of the Government style themselves above the law does NOT mean that it's Open Season on the world's data resources.
Encryption - that's a sounder argument. Prevention of abuse is, IMHO, superior to an eye-for-an-eye attitude. Strong Encryption is the equivalent of handing out portable force-field generators to everyone. If you can set, and enforce, your own boundaries, you don't need to break other people's, out of fear, vengence, or spite.
Yes, I agree that the web page being ripped to shreds is a paranoid rag that demeans it's audience and discredits children's intelligence. On the other hand, most of the counter-arguments fall in the same category. Doing the exact opposite can sometimes be really doing the same.
IMHO, cracking won't be a problem, once IPv6 is FULLY implemented (with flow control labels!) over the Internet, along with a strong flavour of IPSEC and QOS algorithms such as RED, CBQ and ECN, and Windows is replaced with fortified Linux or fortified flavors of BSD (such as OpenBSD).
How so? IPSEC prevents attackers knowing what data is important and what isn't. Sniffing passwords or data becomes impossible. (Funny how the article didn't mention this. If you only encrypt the important stuff, then everyone knows where the important stuff is.)
IPSEC also makes port scanning more complex, for private sites. Simply have the stack reject packets from a source not on a list of known OK sites.
Then there's IPv6, with flow control and packet prioritisation, and all those lovely QOS algorithms. DOS attacks, say by SYN flooding, become impossible. The priority of the packets would drop, and the packets discarded, by the network itself. If the culprit failed to respond to an ECN request to turn the noise down, the net would be capable of automatically locking out the offender.
A fortified OS, such as Linux with the International patches and the various security patches that are floating around, provides you with a solid fortress. Breaking past the prior barriers would be hard enough, but defeating a strong OS, with secure applications, would be next to impossible.
If you want to put crackers out of business, don't invest in slings and arrows. A hilltop fortress, equipt with a Romulin cloaking device, a battery of sensors and early-warning devices, granite walls fifty feet thick and a hundred feet high, with interlocking blocks, and titanium gates, will serve you much better. What's more, the fort turns out to be cheaper.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This software company does not get paid for its games when people copy them off the Internet. If software companies don't get paid for their work, they will go out of business and there won't be any more "really cool games."
Key words. SW company gets no $$$ when you copy a game. Then DOJ gives the example:
Have you ever had a yard sale? Did you ever try to sell any of your old games or toys that you didn't play with anymore? How would you feel if someone took something that you were trying to sell and didn't pay for it? That's stealing, right? Well, copying copyrighted works is stealing, too.
So let's see, if I sell that "really cool game" at the garage sale. The software company gets no $$$. Just like with piracy... so if copying games is theft, then selling used games must be theft too. I guess Garth Brooks was right!
Can someone please explain the American obsession with privacy? I cannot recall any enlightenment thinkers who explicit mention privacy as a natural right of man. It would seem to me that privacy cannot be a natural right of man. If all my actions were private then the contract I have with society (i.e. Locke's social contract) would be unenforcible. If society cannot determine that I have committed a crime because it violates my right to privacy then how can any crime be punished?
It seems that privacy is not a natural right. Locke didn't mention it and, consequently, Jefferson didn't mention it.
If privacy is not a natural right, then privacy is a priviledge granted by the society only when appropriate. As such, one does not have the right to absolute privacy.
However, just because absolute privacy is not a natural right doesn't mean that privacy is not a good thing.
Therefore, making an argument with the assumption that the right to absolute privacy is guaranteed is incorrect.
Andrej
Share bicycle touring info worldwide: http://wheretocycle.com
Did anyone read the rest of the Internet Dos and Don'ts page? Did the "reviewer?"
That article abosolutely reams one lousy page and one lousy "Don't" on another page and then implies that it's okay to copy materials including term papers.
As a parent of two future "netizens" (god, how I hate that word), I saw the DOJ's page a little differently.
Oh yeah, it's as hokey as hell and my kids will probably never see it. But what about the warning not to talk to strangers on the internet? What about alerting an adult if you get a suspicious email? Those aren't good ideas? Does the "reviewer" have kids? Is the "reviewer" old enough to have kids?
There also happens to be information on how to surf, how to use the internet as a library and what kinds of cautionary procedures a child needs to know. Setting my children loose on the internet is like setting them loose on the streets with a bike. I can't and don't want certain things regulated -- like I wouldn't want it regulated that large trucks are not allowed on *any* street at *any* time. That would seriously impair deliveries and commerce -- not to mention my paycheck -- relies on such things as deliveries. Heck, I work across the highway from a GM plant that is my city's largest employer. So "yay big trucks!" But you can be damn sure I'm going to tell my children to be cautious where they ride their bikes -- watch out for big trucks or stay off of major streets until you're more certain.
Same with the 'net.
I'm not saying we need to regulate the hell out of privacy and computing and the net and all the things the under-25 crowd thinks will seriously impair their abilities to get ahead. But I am going to arm my kids with common sense and even, gasp, techo-ethics.
And all the DOJ is doing is being an advisor. MacGruff the internet crime dog or something. I don't know how useful that page really is, but I don't think it's *harmful.* Geeze. It's up to me as a parent to be there for my kids anyway.
And somehow, in the apparently childless (not to mention child-like) "reviewer's" mind, this ends up being a highly-charged political issue about privacy and your rights on-line.
As in my previous post, all I can say is:
"Huh?"
Consigned to flames of woe.
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
...is good for the gander.
Is breaking into my computer bad or not?
Is breaking into my computer illegal or not?
Whether those things are bad or not isn't really the point. The point is that if it's bad for you or me or "evil hackers" to do, then it's also bad for our democratically-elected government to do. If it's illegal for one, it's illegal for the other. Or should be. The fact that it isn't - that there are separate rules in play for governments and wealthy corporate interests - is what this article is illuminating. And it needs to be illuminated. The DOJ is doing its best to keep that information from becoming widely known.
Should children be encouraged to respect my privacy, my property and the law, or not?
That one's easy - of course they should. As should the government. The latter has a less-than-stellar record in that department tho'. The law should be respected, at least in as far as the law is fair and just, and fairly and justly enforced. Where the law is unfair and unjust, it deserves no respect, from children or anyone else.
Same campaign that Nitrous Oxide users got such a kick out of? Just say NO is funny as he11 when your sucking lauging gas.
Intolerant people should be shot.
The fun kind of nitrous oxide is actually NO2. I guess it should be called nitrous dioxide. Maybe you can think about that next time you're sucking down some hippie crack.
I'm really sick of all these new laws. The sad thing is that I doubt they will ever stop, some of them seem to just protect the ignorant computer users while hurting the rest of us.
-chain
I think that the DOJ just needs to back up a little bit. I am looking at a copy of the Constitution, and I don't see anything about telling children what is right and wrong in Article III(the Judicial Branch Part). What I do see, in terms of responsibilities for the judicial branch, is the ability to interpret the law and the constitution, and apply it to cases which are presented. The only place they don't decide is impeachments really. They can also tell congress or the president to stop doing something because it is unconstitutional. I find what the DOJ is currently doing to be pretty unconstitutional. I dont know where they found the power to do this, but I guess they did(or maybe the just don't care about the Constitution anymore). Anyway, maybe I'm crazy(and thats possible), but almost everything the US Gov't does anymore makes me mad.
no you are wrong...
The DoJ is NOT there to check and balance the various federal branches of government...
They are there to oversee nation-wide law enforcement, everything from hunting interstate criminals to litigating against those who break federal regulations...
this IS within their mandate, if you don't like it elect new public officials...
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
They are NOT the judicial branch of gov'ment...
They are an agency of the executive, they do not run the courts, the are the prosecuter...
VERY different... and you do not need a const amendment to write a web page (or to hand out flyers) that is a right that ANY citizen, include Janet Reno, has...
the only rights/powers enumerated in the Constitution are those that go beyond the rights granted ANY organization in this country...
as for their more local mandate (just because they CAN doesn't mean we have to fund it) I am sure Congress has no problem with this allocation of your tax dollars... If you do, run for election, get involved, but don't sit on the sidelines and gripe, that helps no one and changes nothing...
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
I am strangely reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw: "Don't steal, the government hates competition". Why would the DOJ post crap like this, you ask. Simple. If they can get the kids now to not want to hack, they can have total power. Isn't that what the gov't has been trying for since the beginning?
We're all already dead, we're just waiting for the Government to tell us it's okay to be buried.
Of course it's a condescending, semi-coherent rant. That's the only way to get messages across to think skulled, slack jawed, sister screwing masses like you. Repetition, Repetition, Repetition!
We're all already dead, we're just waiting for the Government to tell us it's okay to be buried.
from the doj page:
"Hacking can get you in a whole lot more trouble than you think and is a completely creepy thing to do."
creepy?
wtf?
icq:=22921393;
Funny how Justice on the DOJ's page is missing her traditional blindfold (you know, the one that's supposed to keep justice impartial)..
Guess she just wants to make sure she only throws the hackers into jail, and not any of the government officials pushing for backdoors and weak encryption that the gov't can abuse for our 'safety'
I completely agree.
I think criticial thinking is something that's not emphasized nearly enough (if at all) in the US education system today.
Whether it's laws or science, we need to teach kids more about free speech and the scientific method.
What do we do instead? Teach them what's good and what's bad.. and what the "correct" answer on a science exam is. Why do we do this? My guess is that it's because it's far easier to tell a kid things in clear black and white so they don't talk back to you. Adults don't want kids talking back to them.
Imagine a kid challenging your commands or telling the science teacher that he thinks his exam was graded incorrectly.
In the long run, these kids grow up to be credulous and apathetic as adults.
Respect is EARNED, not given. I do *not* have complete respect for the people who enforce these laws, unless they earn it. And they haven't. Why don't you ask Abner Louima how much *he* respects NYC's finest, I'm sure he *loved* having that plunger shoved up his *ss ...
...
Do you have complete respect for the German SS of the 1930's/1940's? They were _only_ enforcing the laws, just doin their jobs
Sheeple.
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
The wonderful place that it was with quaint shops and farmlands.
Throw in some people who were slightly different than everybody else. We now have a witch hunt.
To me it seems as though the DoJ amongst other government agencies is attempting to not educate the children about the proper use of computers and the internet, but to plant a subliminal message that the ultimate enemy is the
As time goes on, those who walk around with proud "Linux is the shit" stickers on their laptop they will be identified as hackers. C'Mon.. how many real hackers (including standard code-jockey, mis-interpreted crackers) run windows anyway?
All of this can be analyzed through a bit of comparisons
It is our right to have private conversations
The government is directly violating that right as I type this
It is not illegal to exploit a computer. Assuming that you are authorized to do so.Through decent software and bug-fixes, this should be irrelevant
Instead of attempting to find a way to put the skills of people to good use, they attempt to break them.
We're turning into the witches and warlocks of Salem. The communists of the cold war. As this attitude progresses, as our children get a horrible taste in their mouth when the word "hack" is mentioned, the true nerds will be the targets of unfair persecution
I don't want this to happen. I like my linux box, I like finding security holes for my company -- and they like me doing it. Instead of bashing a particular site bash the entire ideology between the proper etiquete they are pushing, and the reality. We are the software world. We are the strongest force on earth, our software powers everything that matters in our civilization. Now they want to turn us into targets if we even slightly derivate from the choosen path. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't want to live in a world without the freedoms I've grown so accustomed to.
If you have children, please inform them that hackers are what push the industry. Hackers find the bugs that should have never been released in the first place. If you are a child -- understand the difference between benefiting society, and harming it. As far as cDc and L0pht go, they did wonderful things, they've proven without a doubt that micrsoft products should have never left Redmond.
Keep it up.
-= Making the world a better place =-
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Of course, my Dad and Mom hated the energy ant cards (which I thought were kind of cool, I mean, how often do schools give out trading cards... I was a kid for cripes sake!) because they were convinced it was Jimmy Carter's fault that everyone was waiting in gas lines. My Dad would make comments about US Navy oil reserves and my Mom (& Dad) both believed that the government was suppressing alternative fuel sources.
Of course, it does seem, to me, that there were indeed enough fossil fuel reserves available to run cars. I still believe in alternative fuel source research, but mostly to improve emissions without sacrificing speed and performance.
In fact, my Dad is convinced of the following scenario: A government scientist develops an alternative energy source that works. He shows it to his masters at the Department of Energy, and, horrified, they make sure to suppress the finding. Actually, I think they made a movie about it called The Formula.
As to the hacker thing... the government hates all hackers that aren't working for it. Hackers (and crackers, let's not forget) working in the CIA, FBI, etc... are just fine, as long as they're hacking & cracking for the government. It's only when an independent person has this power, that they get nervous.
Actually, having the DoJ put up a site against hacking would sure make hacking uncool when I was a kid. I mean really, a bunch of out of touch, patronizing authority figures telling you stuff like this... it sure doesn't make you want to draw eyeglasses and a big mustache on their pictures, does it? If anyone out there collects Babylon Five comics, you might remember the one that was packaged as a fake government propaganda handout for the Psi Core. (If not, you missed one funny comic ;) You know, everything about this Website, reminds me of that comic! The patronizing tone, the massively evil organization behind the comic, everything...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I would also like to direct your attention to the coroner's data archived at http://www.dabney.com/WacoMuse um/death/page/d_a.html. Evidently killing was not enough to silence these people: a certain amount of thorough mangling was also done at the crime scene.
All that Wayco stuff really ticks me off. I think the DOJ and ATF both need a good house cleaning, not just throwing the rascals out, but the imposition of mandatory high-level checks and balances, with grand-jury level civilian oversight of ongoing operations.
couldn't hack their way out of a wet paper bag.
Nitrous is N20.
http://www.resort.com/~banshee/Inf o/N2O/N2O.html
Yes the DOJ is trying to indocrinate, but so what? that is what it is there for...
Excuse me, sir, but you seem to have large amounts of wool on your face, particularly over your eyes...
It's canned the Deaprtment of Justice for a reason. Its job is justice. That means law enforcement. It doesn't mean indoctrination. It means that the extent of the DoJ's role in education is to be "this is against the law," not "this is bad." What's more, it has to be this way. Education and indoctrination are two different things. Education -the teaching of facts- is something the government ought to have a hand in, especially as pertains to the law. People need to know certain things to survive in this world, and governments have the resources to allow for this.
Indoctrination -the teaching of values- is another matter entirely, and not one which we can allow the government to interfere with. Governments have a nasty habit of twisting things to their own advantage regardless of the cost. That's rather hard to do with facts (twist 2+2 around all you want; you'll still get 4). Values, however, are different. That's why, in order to be truly free, in the end each individual must decide his values for himself. Ideally, along the way a person will have guidance from parents, friends, and such, but the last step has to be taken alone, something governments hate (too much randomness, meaning too hard to control).
They couldn't hack their way out of a wet paper bag.
One complaint I have with the article (no, not the overall point; I largely agree with that) is the way it seems to link unrelated or superficially-related events as if there were a kind of cause-and-effect relationship between them. Yeah, sure, Richard Daley did dishonorable, even illegal things. But that has no bearing on whether the things his son William M. are dishonorable or illegal. It sounds to me like William M. Daley is indeed doing dishonorable, possibly illegal things. They'd be dishonorable and possibly illegal even if daddy had been a saint. So why bring up "the sins of the father?" It only makes an otherwise good argument look bad.
I don't see what all of the fuss is about.. It's an obscure government-sponsored anti-computer crime campaign. It's obviously low-budget and if it hadn't been posted here on Slashdot I doubt many people would have ever heard about it.
So it's dumbing stuff down. So what? The target audience is children, not us. If you really think they need to mention some other stuff on the site, why don't you try writing them an e-mail instead of whining on Slashdot and bashing the "evil government". Or is that all these YRO pieces are about nowadays?
The constant repetition of "boys and girls" was annoying as hell, too.
I'm sorry. Your logic is brought down by your assertion that our government also assisinates people.
I hope this isn't true. But if it were true, then who is to blame? Who is the assassin?
If you are living in a democracy (for example, the USA or UK) then it isn't 'The Government' that carries out the assasination (murder). It's you. In a democracy, we are each responsible for the acts of our government. There is no escape from that.
A very wise man once said 'All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.'
I hide behind the facts that I am a hypocrite and a coward.
As others have already said, Justice needs to put her blindfold back on.
However, The most concerning thing to me is that the Government seems not to want kids to learn about their computers. They seem to be taking the attitude of "You should only do things on your computers that your teachers and parents say you should." The government doesn't want too many people to become too familiar with the actual workings of computers, because then they might actually value their privacy online!
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The arguements given are not intelligent, but what do you think a 5-year old will read, a list of do's and don'ts or a long persuasive thesis...
Hmmm ... the primary thing I associate with reading such lists when I was young is a profound sense that the writer is being condescending.
It might be that the insurance companies want the data to be open, so they can easily read it as it goes from Internet site to Internet site, medical data traveling across the Internet, just as carefree as can be. The insurance companies want to make it easy for themselves, so they can keep track of all the medical records.
The writer doesn't know what he's talking about. The insurance industry has absolutely no reason to want to intercept medical information sent over the Internet. They wouldn't to spend a nickel to get the information, and any insurance industry IT manager will tell you that the very notion is laughable.
They already have all of your medical information.
Every time you submit a medical claim to an insurance company, or visit an HMO doctor, data on the claim is sent to an insurance industry clearing house called the Medical Information Bureau (MIB). (The unknown, unseen, all-powerful agency in Will Smith's Men In Black was certainly suggested by the real MIB.)
The MIB maintains detailed medical records on every insured person in the U.S. The bureau was created to prevent insurance fraud--particularly to prevent claims against multiple insurance companies for the same injury. The MIB has been in existence for decades, and has an incredible amount of data.
Here are some sites with more information:
How can this information be used? For example, if you apply for a job with an insurance company, they can examine your medical records to determine whether you're a poor health risk. There are lots of public policy issues about privacy--and medical information is at the heart of them. That the writer doesn't know about it, and doesn't know about how insurance companies track medical information, suggests that he isn't as much of an authority as he'd like to think.
Dude, your links are crap. They go nowhere...
We're all already dead, we're just waiting for the Government to tell us it's okay to be buried.
I found this a couple links away from link in the story.
It's the "Official Word on Drugs."
Anyway, remember when a couple senators tried to pass a law that would make it illegal to have or link to pages that have information on illegal substances? Take a look at the above link.
I wonder if there are any other government web sites or institutions that break laws. Either potential, obscure, or existing laws? Anybody know of some?
+&x
"Hi, I'm Attorney General Janet Reno. Welcome to the Department of Justice Web Page for Congressional Members!
"In this part of the Page, we will be reading about citizens of different political parties, religious views, and cultures who don't meausure up to our standards, and how we will respond with force.
"As you read about the experiences of these lesser citizens, think about what you would do if you found yourself lobbied by them. Think about what you would do to stop them.
How might you respond? "By manipulation of the popular press, slanted polls, and blackballing those who fall outside the lines of our administration, we can learn ways to point out differences that make these people look fanatical or dangerous. We can also learn how we can treat ourselves outside the scope of laws we define for the citizens.
"Together, we can help stop these hateful opinions that hurt political careers just like yours. "
INFO for Lechers / Mobsters
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Indeed. The DoJ is an EXECUTIVE BRANCH department, under the auspices of the "Pres", and acting under his authority. If anything, DoJ is another check-and-balance against Congress and the Courts.
Good to see someone who knows a little about Civics (in the classical sense, not this pablum they're teaching kids today).
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
It's about time someone brought up this subject! I only know the basic stuff about hacking, but I know enough to know that people are retards! So there is the occasional Melissa Virus or crashed computer. That doesn't make us ALL evil. But you were kind of taking it too far. My solution: Ignore them, crash their computer and laugh. No seriously, I just ignore them or set them straight depending on who it is. If it's some bimbo who'll get lost in the computer "mumbo jumbo", then I ignore them, but if they have the slightest bit of intelligence, then I explain to them. Then there's us. The higher life forms who would just love to destroy the incompetent's entire damned Windows piece of crap. But we don't. Why? because we are hackers, with an unspoken honor. Oh, and I decided to go as unknown because I didn't want insults about my raving.
I can't *wait* to see the crack that'll undoubtedly happen for THIS page!!
mindslip
(don't bother rating this!)
Perhaps the DOJ is trying to make "Hacking" look Bad, Creepy, Deveiant, Anti-establishment and Cool. Perhaps they are trying to produce more "Hackers". Think about it, if there a ALOT of hackers then they have a justification for there funding. The establishment has a group to point a finger at and blame everything that goes wrong on. Our Plutocracy has yet another issue to devide and distract us.
I know you were kidding, but for the readers, Socializing has nothing to do with Socialism...
think indocrination, inculcation, Ministry of Truth...
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
Personally, I think page is cheeser than Chuck E., but, let's face it, it does have a few points.... but I digress, my real point is posting here was to question whether or not there was any effort put into this page. I mean, I've heard these "Do's & Don't's" (too many apostrophes? :-) ) a fair number of times already, some almost word-for-word. They didn't exactly have to wear their thinking caps for too long on that part. Also, who was the "web designer" who decided to go with the ultra-cool MS PowerPoint slide motif? :-) This pages (I saw two, so I'll admit it's an unfair assesment) couldn't have taken more than 30 mins, including time for uploading, typo correction, re-uploading. Ok, ok, I'll stop ranting and raving now.... :-)
Anyways, that's my 2E-2 of US currency...
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
I'll reply to my own post since I got six replies saying more or less the same thing.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
My answer boils down to: Your wrong.
Governments pass laws that tell us what we can and cannot do. That is their nature. However, they should be making laws based on pragmatic and democratic reasons: not morals.
As a citizen of a country I have to accept that the government tells me what is legal. But I will never accept that the government tells me what is good and bad. When a government does that, then it is telling me what to think, and my brain is off limits to it.
You don't have to be religious to hold your own morals (I am not religious, and btw, I was deeply sarcastic about the public hanging part). But you do have to be religious to believe that morals should be mandated and preached to us from above. And you have to believe in government and church as one if you believe such preaching should come from the state.
-
Am I one of the very few that posted that is annoyed by this article. Sure its funny, haha.
Now that I'm done laughing, lets be serious for a moment. Just reading the article gave me the feeling I was talking with an immature, highly over hormoned child (i'm a child myself, but I have enough intelligence to realize the difference between constructive criticism and being a dick.)
Yes the DOJ's webpage is uninformed, and quite comical. However, this article was just flat out lame mockery.
You guys have not a clue? Are you brain-numbed from sitting in front of that monitor too long? There's a world out there, politics, and business. Obviously Mr. Gates succeeded, you are just jealous. I do not stand up for his cause, but I do respect him for having a life, and not posting ignorant uninformed comments on slashdot, or about our government.
Geesh, I really think some of you ought like, take a government class, it'll be informative. And likewise, they should take a few technology classes. It's all good, but these are 2 completely different fields, and I think both sides need proper education before we can dictate.
--Brian
Did anyone else notice that the example they gave of the kid crashing the phone company resulted in a VERY flawed punishment. Sure he has to do community service and pay that huge fine, but not being allowed to use a computer with a modem is no big deal at all. I'm sitting in my dorm room fully connected to the internet right now, yet I don't have a modem. So how do I do it? That's right, I have a T1 connection through an ethernet card! No modem, but I can still do all sorts of bad things (well, if I knew what I was doing and had the deisre). So either the DOJ paraphrased the verdict, or the judge in the case was a complete moron!
(Sarcasm) geez! It's sure bad reading other peoples' e-mail!(/Sarcasm) ...Except at my high school we were taught "U.S. Mail is legally gauranteed private. E-mail isn't" and that there will be "regular e-mail checks" of our mailboxes. I think there should be a slight note at the bottom: "Note: The government can do whatever they want. Rules don't apply to them, because they're special." Personally, though, I wouldn't be too worried about all this. When I started "surfing the Net" (man, I hate overused phrases) six years ago, I didn't give a damn about being a good "Netizen," and I did not look at ANY page like this. I doubt a kid would, either. I could seriously make a better page than that in half an hour. (Sarcasm) But I think that the DOJ should get back to more important things to spend your tax dollars on, like registering offense domain names. (/Sarcasm)
~Arrakis123, "The Voice of Reason"
they added a convient link to the 10 most wanted list.
I think this should go down in history as a remarkable peice of propaganda.
---
I hacked my school once through the internal network and downloaded four large files with all of the information of every student. I had schedules, grades, and all the little personal information in the world one could ever want. Of course, it is a lot easyer to get this info now that I am an aide in the guidance office and I get to look at any personal information with permission because I can be "trusted" now. Of course, its not easy to hack into these files anymore, since one of my classmates reported me last year and they changed the password to, I belive, "n0m0r3h4ck13pl33z3!" instead of "password".
;-)
linuxnewbie.com
Of ourse this is true, no one argues with this, usually. My problem with the government, having committed more crimes than I can ever imagine, has NO CREDABILITY.
Our leaders in this country should be the most moral and intelligent people in the country, and the most commited to improving the lives of the average population. But no, they're commited to the most childlike philosophy of all...money. Token concern for the poor and the environment, education, the list goes on.
"Mommy, I want some candy right now or I'm gunna kick and scream!" So EXCUSE ME if I have no respect for the government who isn't much more mature than a child.
Don't get me wrong, there are some great things about this country. We have more freedom than people in most countries. What most people don't realize, is that this is because of the common man DEMANDING our basic rights as laid out in the constitution. Those in power never made a difference for social justice compared to the average citizens who tried to make a difference. Our government tries to make a stable society, but stable for who? The elite.
When slavery ended, it wasn't because Abraham Lincoln wanted it to, it was because people wrote anti-slavery papers/newsletters, educated the poulation, and DEMANDED it.
We don't have 40 hour work weeks and safe work conditions because rich company owners wanted it, it's because people unionized in the early 1900's and DEMANDED it.
When women were finally allowed to vote, it wasn't bacause the men in power wanted to share that power, it's because average women organized and DEMANDED it.
When civil rights bills were passed, it wasn't because Kennedy/LBJ/other presidents wanted it, it's because the civil rights movement DEMANDED it.
Many people who have been forgotten by history died for these causes, these are the people I have respect for, not the power elite.
So when the department of justice spouts off to kids about not causing trouble, this is what I think. When the government uses technology to subvert and control the population, I won't apologize for having no respect for them. Their track record gives them no moral authority to tell me whats right and wrong. No one has that authority because no is perfect. The government's track record just gives them a whole lot less that everyone else.
Was the link to the 10 most wanted men, with explict details about their crimes and so on..
If they can put such things online.. in such manner.. why do they critize Marilyn Manson and ID folk?
--
If you like computers, don't use your brains to hack systems, invade other people's privacy, and take away their networks. Hacking can get you in a whole lot more trouble than you think and is a completely creepy thing to do. If you're so smart, use that computer to do great things!
Some Linux device drivers for my printer would be nice...
What's with the "creepy" thing? Don't tell me that lingo is back in style...
Go away.
A 5 year old child can't think?
Isn't it a stereotype?
That's what a school teach us. When we start thinking the society is evolving, some of our mindset are not.
Many will agree in near future, 10 years old will learn calculus, there will read the Stephen Hawkin Universe.
But to the "thinking" parts, some still think the children cannot "distinguish" good or bad, but they can accept the 10 years old learning calculus . They think learning mathematics is different compare to philosophy, where you just "learn" mathematics, and philosophy is "thinking".
And most of us know, huamn still "learning" the philosophy by thinking.
offtopic part:
I think everyone agrees abortion is bad. however, it is sometimes the best alternative. if everyone were as rational as you are, we wouldn't have all this trouble.
hmm. I think I'll have an abortion today. sounds fun.
yes, I'm pro-choice. I still think abortions are not a good thing, but I don't believe in dictating morality to people.
ontopic part:
well, if we go by the people who go around and shoot doctors, abortion is an unstablizing influence on certain sectors of society. is it illegal? NO.
we allow heated debates and the chance that people will get a little too dramatic (fight murder with murder!) and break laws they advocate in a stronger form because stabalization of society is not the end-all and be-all of our country.
after all, no one is really "pro-abortion". they're pro-choice. they are not likely to go shoot people becasue of it. of course, I would not have believed that people who believe abortion is murder would go and commit murder in a stronger form themselves, and be PROUD of it.
sorry, offtopic a bit.
Lea
... is that the DOJ is likely to interpret the massive number of hits generated by the slashdot effect as a sign that their site is wildly successful. In other words, expect to see more drivel from the DOJ in the near future.
Nathan
Hm. DOJ. That strikes a decidedly ominous tome...Rules determining hacking/justice? For a bunch of little kids? I am a Christian, but I'm not here to have a theology fight. The age-old question: Is it really wrong to break into a system?
1. First thing here, there is really no such thing as an anarchy. For short periods, yes, but whoever is most powerful gains control eventually.
2. Those who would stay in control establish rules with punishments and rewards for infringement and obedience, accordingly.
Therefore, whether we all want to break into everyone else's system or not, there are rules that, in order to have a strong society (where people aren't dying, starving, going mad, etc) must be kept. Sorry, all you h4x0r 31337 anarchists.
So, now comes the more complicated realm of "good" (nice coders, the true hackers) and "evil" (nasty warez cracker code kiddies). "Good" hackers want to write good software, tinker, geek about, and generally better mankind. "Crackers" are bad and like to take names like BL00D13 T4L0N and things like that, break things, damage things, etc. Hackers are good when they break in. They patch things. Crackers just like to suck down your bandwidth and spread virii. Right?
No. We can't ascertain motive. So where do we draw the line? Can someone break into a system to cause good will to the admin and users? Can it really be legal?
Until we re-establish in this nation that there is absolute truth, we're not going to get anywhere with this...
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
*Thump*
What was that?
I think i just heard Orwell Turn over in his grave.
taken from the page:
"Something goes wrong when you and Quentin try to break into the school's computer system, and you are both caught. Your friends get very angry with you and Quentin for looking at their grades. Your school had to pay a lot of money to figure out who had broken into the computer, and to fix it so that it will not happen again. There is now no money left to purchase new sports equipment."
so what is that saying, that its the cracker's fault that your school cant buy more sports gear for all the jocks??? is it just me, or does this seem like nerd discrimination to anyone else???
You know what i'd liek to see.
some "hacker" "hack" this page. GOD that woul d be funny as hell!
Simply put, they are trying to make sure future genrations don't question the status-quo, and that future society, in general, see anyone who goes 'outside the lines' and uses software/tools for what they are, not what they are supposed to be, as bad.
Jeez. You'd figure by now people would realize that making something illegal in America makes people want to do it.
Look at what happened with prohabition. Look at the lack of drug use with teens. Look at underage drinking. Look at underage smoking. Look at the Kavorkian mercy killings.
As a culture Americans seems to love doingt he taboo. Of course the advent of script kiddies makes an interesting case that these kids aren't hacking or cracking... just "point and 'hack'". No real talent, no understanding. Just a program they downloaded with a simple readme file.
No arcane knowledge of how computers work. Just a program they downlaoded and tricked someone into installing.Most of these revolve around well known and documented flaws, gaps, and big freakin' holes... But ones l-users are not advised on being existant or even how to fix.
I think the Feds would be better off passing regulations on security requirements for the networks - rather than coloring books on the evils of hacking. lets the Feds be the Chicken-slaughter house inspectors of the Internet and spend their time hacking into networks and fining the sysadmins for "insecure" networks.
Jeez! If pube-boy kids can crash the Boston phone system, I can imagine what determined "hackers" from Libya could do to our national security. . Why don't the Feds protect us by making the networks secure rather hassling teens that can bypass the security of a major city's teleco and cause such national security concerns that the SS gets called in.
I like my justice blind.
Low Cache
Tough luck, you where out by 24 hours.. it's already tomorrow here ;)
Though at least Americans can be happy that the world isn't going to end tomorrow, Australia's already tried it out, and it worked just fine.
(not that I know you're american, just it's a reasonably safe guess)
It would suck to suck NO2, as NO2 = Nitrogen Dioxide. It's very toxic. Perhaps you want N20?
This page tells you what happens when you tell a girl her password's not secure. Apparently :-)
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
It is wonderful to see this type of passion expressed with such anger, wit, and sarcasm. And, while I don't necessarily agree with everything the piece goes into, the overall point and tone are ones I completely understand and agree with.
/. for occasionally posting articles of this nature.
FWIW, those who prefer a "dryer" more "stale" approach would tend to be those who prefer reading code as opposed to prose - this is great - I prefer not looking for that which would cause a buffer overflow - but I'm damn glad there are those who do!
However, the typical congressman and/or elected official is not going to get the same enjoyment looking through apm.c to understand power management in the kernel as you or I would. Let's face facts. They wouldn't be able to even read on the same level and deal with the concepts unless they were driping with an underlying hint at their own naivete (which in this industry is synonymous with STUPID).
Remenber one voice can make a diference (remember that guy named Torvolds who didn't want to have to use inferior M$ products?).
...It's just that an insulting "bitch slap" gets more attention from those who would prefer not to listen than a doctorial dissertation does. (Think repetition, repetition, repetition..."If the glove dosen't fit, you have to acquit...."). It's for the benefit of the stupid. You should get the idea.
I love a good angry, 'dripping with sarcasm' article. It evokes an emotional response as well as informs. Thank you
-ravage
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."- Albert E.
Federal Baby Incinerators We should disband that entire agency, take away their pensions they have earned (unless they have already retired) and give all their equipment to other federal agencies.
Remember boys and girls,when the DOJ kick in your door,take head shots.theyll be wearing body armor.
Use hollow-points too,cause even if you dont hit squarely,the fragments will get the job done.
Can you say "Bill of Rights"?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Furthermore, it's absurd to say that drug education doesn't work because there are still people that do drugs. That's like saying we should abandon all education because some people are still stupid.-k
Seems that even the chinese government will sooner or later outperform the DOJ and their Gauleiters in terms of 'honoring the Human Rights'.
Use The Source, Luke!
If you were in the Dallas area at the time of the Waco "Incident", you could watch video footage (on public access of course, no network would touch it) of the FBI breaking down the walls and changing into the compound with tanks shooting fire. The people inside only responded and did NOT incite violence in any way.
There was no child molestation or drug manufacturing occurring. The government was angry that some people were living outside of its control, and so shut them down -- violently with the BATF.
This was only a page in the book detailing how government sucks, is composed of crooks and thieves and murderers who are only interested in maintaining their position in power at any cost. They have left behind the campaign promises that allowed them to achieve the office they occupy.
"All people suck, government is a lie, I am now God and this is my compound." -- Bill Hicks (one of the better comic minds of this century)
"All government is bad, but democracy is better than all of them." -- Anonymous
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
-total slashdot posting/reading time * avg. slashdot reader wage exceeds budget of disturbing government program (or DGP).
-someone says gov. is evil
-someone says the government hacks their computer and gives no proof
--twice if it's the nsa.
-every time reading all of the comments makes you forget exactly what the DGP is
-someone says the DGP won't work
-someone points out hacking/cracking discrepency
--twice if the audience of the article wouldn't know the difference
-someone suggests the gov. should generically follow the same rules the populace does
-someone bashes M$
--twice if they suggest billy should be imprisoned or killed
-anyone blames crackees for their troubles w/o blaming crackers
-anyone blames criminal behavior on laws prohibiting it
-everytime the word "encryption" is mentioned
--Twice if all security problems could be solved by relaxation of encryption laws.
-180k bucks or a website interpreted as a broad-sweeping government initiative.
-someone mentions a historical injustice as proof on gov. inadequacy
--twice if it is more than 30 yrs old
---three times if it deals with hoover-era fbi
-someone claims the government has backdoors on current computers/encryption
-someone claims the DGP will give the government absolute power
Am I the only person to notice that our tax dollars were used to make the absolute worst(a la Geocities level) web pages ever? Could we have a few more color changes and cheap .WMF file artwork?
This short-signed (ab)use of executive power led to enormous wastes of people's time, energy and fuel (yes, fuel, wasted idling in gas lines waiting to get gas). This was worse than anything Clinton is accused of doing, and I think it's a shame that nobody tried impeaching the ol' Peanut Farmer over it.
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I thought the Justice for Kids and Youth page was pretty nice. I don't mind my tax dollars going to that.
Grow up. Get a life.
----
----
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.
The people in law enforcement do a very difficult job. Most of them deserve our respect, some do not. By facing the dangers involved in law enforcement they've earned my respect, unless they show they don't deserve it.
the government has never shown that the civilians at Waco had full auto weapons, let along grenades.
The only people throwing grenades at Waco were the feds.
Where the heck do you get your information, anyway?
--
Clear, Dark Skies
How did you connect *those* dots? They didn't require the fire arms license in order to sell paperweights, dolt!
--
Clear, Dark Skies
ISO certification wouldn't guarantee that the software be bug free, just that it's produced by the same method every time. If your documented method of QA was having a programmer sit blindfolded in front of the code, and reject if she/he saw any bugs, you would pass your ISO audit as long as you used the method you documented.
Of course, any reasonable ISO plan would have a real system in place, and a method for handling customer complaints and product improvement. Anyway...
especially if that power can be used against me!
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
That'll solve everything.
Do you realize how much time (and money) running for election (even locally) now involves? I barely have enough time for my own life, cooking, cleaning, working, sleeping, to run for public office. Few companies grant time off to run for public office, or only claim that they would, but the actual policy is "if you don't work x hours per week, you're out of here"
Getting involved in an election is also difficult, though not impossible. If you want to really do it right... Just read all the local newspapers, not just the main one. Watch all the TV newscasts. Read all the internet sites. Go to any local government meetings. Go to the precinct meetings held after the voting ends (you did know about those, right?).
Or, you can just do things the way most people do, and just go to the booth and select the ones that look right.
There's so much to consider, that spending enough time to figure out what the candidates real positions are, and how likely they are to stick to those positions that you like versus the ones you are against, is more time than most of us have available.
But, GET INVOLVED! At the least, communicate with your representatives, regardless of how difficult it is, regardless of how many junk mail lists they put you on, because people who communicate with representatives are more likely to contribute to them. Oh, and your letter will be "carefully" read and considered (as another vote for or against whatever issue)
Get them to read Slashdot, and offer to spend several hours a day explaining it to them. You may get a job as an aide, and get to be ignored full-time.
Thanks for reading this far, I'm done ranting for the moment.
I agree in principle. It's just that in practice most organizations (at least from what I have seen or experienced) that implement ISO 9000 do so in such a way as to quite cumbersomely regiment everything that must be done, and completely stifle all creativity and/or productivity.
Most companies that value ISO 9000 tend to have a similar mindset (or so it would appear), and so rather than hire people (or train people) who know how to build good software, they rely on standards and procedures to turn out good software. Even the very best standards and procedures will fail to turn out good software if good people aren't coding and testing, but this is often overlooked. I would far rather have better people with fewer S&P than a mountain of S&P in order to insure good code (when often the mountain of S&P is counter-productive to the code-building process).
Don't look to documents to build good code. Look to good people to build good code.
Impossible = A fun challenge