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]
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"...
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.
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
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!
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
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
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.
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!
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!!!
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
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)
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.
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 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.
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)
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).
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.
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
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."
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.
-
Selling games would be theft if you kept a copy.
Simple, no, when you think?
You've paid for it once, and if you sell it *once* AND DON'T KEEP A COPY, the publisher still got it's price-per-copy.
Got a clue now?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
routing script kiddie sniffing and cracking ok ? The government doesnt do that, either.
Please see recent news where U.S. government has admitted to cyberattacks. In some cases breeching innocent third party systems in the process.
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...
Most of them think its either a "holy war" or "justice". I can sorta understand the justice part, aka sentencing someone to death for killing someone else, but sorry to say, mob rule is so ... passé (hehehe). And you know trial by jury is always a good idea :) :) :)
But anyways abortion was just an example, not my main point. I was trying to show how I see law as it should be, existing to stabilize society. And yes your right, some people do say that abortion destabilizes society. But most of the destabilization is caused by the people who kill doctors cause of it or what not. And the destabilition that the act itself might cause isn't much difference upon society as a whole as the the effects of having it illigal. Its kinda like the war on drugs, causes more problems then it makes. Though my view of drugs differs greatly from my view on abortion, as drugs only tend to hurt one's self when used within the frame of law, and can hurt others when used outside of the frame of law, (aka drunk driver/violence is getting a drug that is declared "illigal")
WHOA I just went even farther off topic than you did
But anyhow one last question, as someone who is "pro-choice" why are laws forcing a minor to atleast get counceling in order to have an abortion considered a "bad thing" (tm). As I see it, it seems to be a law that promoted stability and forces people to think, which in my humble opinion is a "good thing" (tm).