I will not get into a discussion of which crime is more vulgar, that part is obvious.
The FBI has a mission as a national LE agency to protect the American society from crimes that cross state boundaries or are a threat to the society of the nation as a whole. Identity theft is similar to the bank robberies of the last century. Before the FBI made bank robbers a priority, there were a lot of bank robberies, and these were becoming an issue to the safety and security of the banking system. This became a national priority, the FBI threw its resources at it, and within a decade, although not eliminated, the magnitude of the problem was solved. Although millions may view porn, millions are not molesting children. But the current rash of identity theft and electronic fraud, if not checked, will effect our national economy - and that is what makes it a serious issue. Not protecting each victim, but the sanctity of the electronic banking/e-commerce system that has become the backbone of our consumer based economy.
With BotNets, Identity Theft and other serious on-line crime, I am so glad that the FBI has the resources to protect us from porn . . .
Having had my Identity stolen (the old fashion way - postal theft) and haven gotten no response form any LE - local answer - not in our jurisdiction, FBI answer - not enough $$ involved.
Thinking of that - how much $$ are they investigating in this sting operation?
Cyber crime will not be a priority until either
1) we get an administration with a different set of priorities (I don't see hope on the horizon there)
2) someone important gets really gouged by Identity theft or a botnet
3) a magic unicorn arrives and makes everything nice
Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, IBM - they have had their turn through the monopoly ringer from major governments . . . why is ebay exempt?
Because there is no fanatical base screaming? Watch out ebay, you may create it, and then, well ask Mr. Ballmer what making checks out to EU is like!
Watching a TV ad for AF recruiting - I see scenes of "Cyber Warriors" and the narrator describes the role as "defending America". So, what is the role - defending America, or defending US Military infrastructure? Given that foreign intelligence goes after secrets in US industry - how will the USAF step up to the plate and defend us? As a first responder? How does this fit with posse comitatus? And given the generally poor state of protection across the federal sector - will you help them? and how? I understand using USAF for offensive IO, but am not seeing how you can practically address defense.
Too many comments to see if this has been covered - but how about a cheap fingerprint reader.
I will not add my 2 cents worth on parents/kids/privacy . . .
There are alternatives - EvDO, leased lines, etc. But they are not economically viable alternatives. Most are well over $100 a month or more, and their speeds are not cable speeds - kudos to Comcast - I do get 8 mb download speed. This is an economic game, and just like the person who lived way out in the country in the middle of the last century and wanted phone service - universal internet service is the same issue - if monopolies are going to be granted by the government, then they need to be economically regulated with respect to unversal service levels.
provide acceptable levels of service for all of their customers. Yes, they are a monoploy, because Cable franchises are awarded by area and for the vast majority of customers there are no real alternatives. I live in a major city (Houston) and because of where I live, I have 1 choice for high speed internet - cable. DSL is "coming soon", as is fiber and other options, but right now - if I want high speed internet I have cable. And there the city/state has decided who my provider is going to be. It used to be Time Warner, but they swapped turfs with Comcast recently in Texas and I became a Comcast customer - not by choice, but by governmental decision. Just like the old days of the regulated telephone monopoly, the customer is not free to choose, and hence to maintain some level of accountability in a closed market - regulation is required. If it were a free market, different rules could apply, but it is not a free market, and the cable companies know that. They will try to do whatever they can to maximize profits in their closed markets, and it is up to government regulators to look out for customer interests. Unfortunately, this isn't happening.
Two real choices:
1) open cable up to complete free and open competition - each consumer can choose their own provider. Unfortunately for technical reasons, this really isn't very easy, or possible to do.
2) Regulate the monopoly, with appropriate rules on service, pricing, availability. The problem here is one of who decides the "appropriate" aspect, and on that issue our government regulators have been woefully inadequate. Time for public utility boards to stand up and do their jobs.
The key to a successful congressional career - vote one way on the amendment, the other way on the bill - that way you can say you were for all positions . . . The amendment to block immunity failed, and then the bill passed - if someone was against immunity, they could have voted no to the bill as well, bit then they couldn't have their cake and eat it too . . .
From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that brings you MPAA/RIAA friendly legislation - whether college campuses need it or not.
From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that has not been in an uproar over domestic spying in general.
From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that has chosen not to get involved in electronic confiscation at our borders - warning to all, don't bring laptops, cell phones or PDAs into the US.
The concept of getting corporate "cooperation" is more important than civil liberties or freedom. Remember that to those in power, freedom could be used to change things, and those in power do not want change. And speaking of change, is not the theme of the Obama campaign change? And yet, how did he vote . . . if this makes you wonder or surprises anyone, well I guess they have been sleeping for the last few decades.
I know it will be considered heretical to step up to the plate and defend the US Air Force on this forum, but step back and look at what they are saying. They want to put in place a mechanism that will allow ordianry computer users the ability to capture and report potential suspicious activity in an automated and non-technical fashion. When you look at this from an incident response standpoint, this would be a very useful tool. Calling this snapshot and reporting mechanism a cyber-sidearm might seem silly, but it does give a way for them to engage their large user base. Remember the world is not filled with geeks, we are the different, the elite, and when the masses need a tool that helps us, let them have it and give them a break. I say thumbs up for both trying and potentially developing something that will advance the state-of-the-art in incident response.
This should be a wake-up call to Apple. For years we have heard the battle cry about how Apple PC's don't suffer from viruses and malware like Windows (not necessarily a factual claim, but made all the time anyway by strident Apple idealists). Hackers, malware writers and virus writers are not dummies and they know how to use marketshare and popularity to spread their evil wares. Now that the iPhone has been shown to be not the safest codebase out there, and based on its popularity and Apple's image - the time is ripe for real attacks that actually cause damage to begin to appear. Welcome to the big leagues Apple, now's the time to clean up your act, and get secure code out there. I only wish Apple had the same level of technical acumen that their marketing department thrives on.
Slashdot Mirror
I will not get into a discussion of which crime is more vulgar, that part is obvious. The FBI has a mission as a national LE agency to protect the American society from crimes that cross state boundaries or are a threat to the society of the nation as a whole. Identity theft is similar to the bank robberies of the last century. Before the FBI made bank robbers a priority, there were a lot of bank robberies, and these were becoming an issue to the safety and security of the banking system. This became a national priority, the FBI threw its resources at it, and within a decade, although not eliminated, the magnitude of the problem was solved. Although millions may view porn, millions are not molesting children. But the current rash of identity theft and electronic fraud, if not checked, will effect our national economy - and that is what makes it a serious issue. Not protecting each victim, but the sanctity of the electronic banking/e-commerce system that has become the backbone of our consumer based economy.
With BotNets, Identity Theft and other serious on-line crime, I am so glad that the FBI has the resources to protect us from porn . . . Having had my Identity stolen (the old fashion way - postal theft) and haven gotten no response form any LE - local answer - not in our jurisdiction, FBI answer - not enough $$ involved. Thinking of that - how much $$ are they investigating in this sting operation? Cyber crime will not be a priority until either 1) we get an administration with a different set of priorities (I don't see hope on the horizon there) 2) someone important gets really gouged by Identity theft or a botnet 3) a magic unicorn arrives and makes everything nice
Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, IBM - they have had their turn through the monopoly ringer from major governments . . . why is ebay exempt? Because there is no fanatical base screaming? Watch out ebay, you may create it, and then, well ask Mr. Ballmer what making checks out to EU is like!
Watching a TV ad for AF recruiting - I see scenes of "Cyber Warriors" and the narrator describes the role as "defending America". So, what is the role - defending America, or defending US Military infrastructure? Given that foreign intelligence goes after secrets in US industry - how will the USAF step up to the plate and defend us? As a first responder? How does this fit with posse comitatus? And given the generally poor state of protection across the federal sector - will you help them? and how? I understand using USAF for offensive IO, but am not seeing how you can practically address defense.
Since I have actually used Wikileaks . . . as a user (or a customer) am I going to get a cease and desist order if they lose this round?
Too many comments to see if this has been covered - but how about a cheap fingerprint reader. I will not add my 2 cents worth on parents/kids/privacy . . .
There are alternatives - EvDO, leased lines, etc. But they are not economically viable alternatives. Most are well over $100 a month or more, and their speeds are not cable speeds - kudos to Comcast - I do get 8 mb download speed. This is an economic game, and just like the person who lived way out in the country in the middle of the last century and wanted phone service - universal internet service is the same issue - if monopolies are going to be granted by the government, then they need to be economically regulated with respect to unversal service levels.
provide acceptable levels of service for all of their customers. Yes, they are a monoploy, because Cable franchises are awarded by area and for the vast majority of customers there are no real alternatives. I live in a major city (Houston) and because of where I live, I have 1 choice for high speed internet - cable. DSL is "coming soon", as is fiber and other options, but right now - if I want high speed internet I have cable. And there the city/state has decided who my provider is going to be. It used to be Time Warner, but they swapped turfs with Comcast recently in Texas and I became a Comcast customer - not by choice, but by governmental decision. Just like the old days of the regulated telephone monopoly, the customer is not free to choose, and hence to maintain some level of accountability in a closed market - regulation is required. If it were a free market, different rules could apply, but it is not a free market, and the cable companies know that. They will try to do whatever they can to maximize profits in their closed markets, and it is up to government regulators to look out for customer interests. Unfortunately, this isn't happening. Two real choices: 1) open cable up to complete free and open competition - each consumer can choose their own provider. Unfortunately for technical reasons, this really isn't very easy, or possible to do. 2) Regulate the monopoly, with appropriate rules on service, pricing, availability. The problem here is one of who decides the "appropriate" aspect, and on that issue our government regulators have been woefully inadequate. Time for public utility boards to stand up and do their jobs.
The key to a successful congressional career - vote one way on the amendment, the other way on the bill - that way you can say you were for all positions . . . The amendment to block immunity failed, and then the bill passed - if someone was against immunity, they could have voted no to the bill as well, bit then they couldn't have their cake and eat it too . . .
From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that brings you MPAA/RIAA friendly legislation - whether college campuses need it or not. From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that has not been in an uproar over domestic spying in general. From the same US Congress/Administration/Government that has chosen not to get involved in electronic confiscation at our borders - warning to all, don't bring laptops, cell phones or PDAs into the US. The concept of getting corporate "cooperation" is more important than civil liberties or freedom. Remember that to those in power, freedom could be used to change things, and those in power do not want change. And speaking of change, is not the theme of the Obama campaign change? And yet, how did he vote . . . if this makes you wonder or surprises anyone, well I guess they have been sleeping for the last few decades.
I know it will be considered heretical to step up to the plate and defend the US Air Force on this forum, but step back and look at what they are saying. They want to put in place a mechanism that will allow ordianry computer users the ability to capture and report potential suspicious activity in an automated and non-technical fashion. When you look at this from an incident response standpoint, this would be a very useful tool. Calling this snapshot and reporting mechanism a cyber-sidearm might seem silly, but it does give a way for them to engage their large user base. Remember the world is not filled with geeks, we are the different, the elite, and when the masses need a tool that helps us, let them have it and give them a break. I say thumbs up for both trying and potentially developing something that will advance the state-of-the-art in incident response.
This should be a wake-up call to Apple. For years we have heard the battle cry about how Apple PC's don't suffer from viruses and malware like Windows (not necessarily a factual claim, but made all the time anyway by strident Apple idealists). Hackers, malware writers and virus writers are not dummies and they know how to use marketshare and popularity to spread their evil wares. Now that the iPhone has been shown to be not the safest codebase out there, and based on its popularity and Apple's image - the time is ripe for real attacks that actually cause damage to begin to appear. Welcome to the big leagues Apple, now's the time to clean up your act, and get secure code out there. I only wish Apple had the same level of technical acumen that their marketing department thrives on.