4. this is an excuse to create a mass event, so they can find a reason to 'SECURE THE NET' via EVIL means, ie, only authorized webservers, all ports but 80 blocked, everything logged.
Precisely.
I'll even go one step further and name the evil means: the new cybersecurity bill
After the news has its fun with the "cyberterrorist threat" for a few days, how many people do you think will oppose this ridiculously overbroad bill? What do you think the majority will say to/about those few who still have the sense to object?
That is a straw man argument. No nation on this earth has the power to invade and take over the U.S. Even if they could somehow get past the physical isolation of the country and it's ginormous military and move in a large occupying force, they'd find a hostile, technically capable, and armed populace who wouldn't stand for it.
The choices we have are between U.S. fascism with some terrorist attacks, and U.S. liberty with slightly more terrorist attacks. Out of those two, which would you pick?
Pfft. Like rednecks are going to sign up for anything that requires a captcha to begin with. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of them knew how to turn on the "magic thinking box" (nevermind get online).
I wasn't going to buy a Mercedes in the first place, it doesn't matter if I instantly create a duplicate copy of one on the spot at no cost to anyone and drive off with it.
I'll agree that artwork open to interpretation won't work, ascii or otherwise.
But what about simple rebuses? Only two to three images that when spoken aloud sound like another word. A little more mental effort, perhaps, but easier on the eyes and virtually impossible for present-day computers.
Life expectancy represents an average statistic - it includes infant mortality and accidental/violent deaths (which occurs in the early 20's more often than not).
The U.S. has a lot of accidental/violent deaths. Gang violence in the inner cities, 3500 people every month in car accidents, over 1000 people every year from bringing electrical appliances into the bath with them (I shit you not). Hence, the lower life expectancy.
I believe the plan is to (eventually) offer low-cost federal insurance that allows us to actually get to choose our own doctor. It's not mandatory, either - if we're insured under our employer or wealthy enough to afford our own insurance, we can choose that instead. There's been talk of making insurance mandatory only for children.
No one is getting free medical care in the U.S. - except those on medicare/medicaid (and that system needs a serious overhaul).
This article just pertains to step 1 of Obama's plan, which is to reduce costs so that the government can actually afford to offer subsidized insurance.
The problem with sending out information to a third party is that you automatically lose the right to withhold said information on the grounds that it's self-incriminating, and search & seizure laws no longer apply (no one needs a warrant to take it).
If you're going to have backups off-site, better to send it to a server you own and operate, or an offshore server you only access through anonymous proxy.
If you're good at hiding things, then you're probably better off with a copy hidden at home. An SD card will fit into a remote in lieu of batteries, or a zippo with the stuffing taken out (search warrants don't apply to your person). A USB drive can fit easily into a cigarette pack, or - if you're really paranoid - inside a light switch socket.
Yah, sure, why not? The only time I put money in the bank is when I have to pay the utility companies anyway. If I left money in there they could use it to lend out more loans they can't back up.
I really, really miss the Wild Wild Web. I don't see why it can't just stay that way. Fuck commerce. They can make money the old fashioned way, and we can have our international communications network.
SCOTUS can only rule on cases that are brought to it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something in this bill you could sue the government over that wouldn't just get nullified by sovereign immunity anyway.
Yep. Two terms for senators, four for congressmen sounds about right. Congress briefly considered imposing term limits on themselves some years back, but then decided that it probably wasn't in their best interest.
Beyond that, we need blind elections (no party or incumbent designation on the ballot). This would make it much easier for minority parties to get into power and break up the dual monoparty system we have now.
We have three major minority parties in the U.S. right now (Green, Libertarian, Constitutional), and while their platforms vary greatly, they all have one thing in common - they all want a smaller federal government.
Yes, yes, everybody here is familiar with that sentiment. My issue is, I would never sacrifice freedom for (supposed) security - so why am I having it taken away from me anyway?
Not really. I was already dreading the up-and-coming anti-terror legislation while watching the news on Sept. 11, 2001.
I've never been afraid of terrorism in this country. It's too big, it's too spread out: terrorists would be lucky to pull off an escapade once in a decade that would cause as much loss of life as traffic accidents cause every month.
To be fair, Snowe is my senator, and she's not really a Republican. I'm pretty sure she runs as a Republican just so she can break from her party whenever there's a partisan issue. Sort of like senatorial sabotage.
Nah. Democrats don't censor; they socialize and overregulate. Although the net result may be the same (lack of availability).
"We're not banning anything - we're making sure this is used properly by everyone. Now, please file your form for your network ID to get access to your internet ration. What? You don't already have your internet ration? Well then, we can't issue you your ID."
I've just scanned the 51-page bill and concluded that the summary is hyperbolic, at the least.
The bill addresses concerns over cyberterrorism, creates a review panel that serves in an advisory role to the president, tracks potential computer science & cybersecurity students from kindergarten on (and offers them incentives and inclusion in summer government programs), offers to split the costs of cybersecurity with small businesses and nonprofits for at least the first 3 years, and finally, authorizes the president to shut down "federal and United States critical systems" in the advent of an emergency situation.
It's that last one that's bothering folks, especially since emergency isn't well defined - but a state of emergency is never well defined; it's pretty much whatever the president says it is and it's always been that way.
My issue is the lack of definition of "critical systems". From the bill, it can be inferred that critical systems pertain to utilities and financial institutions, but it's never explicitly defined.
In any case, nowhere is there mentioned the ability to shut down nonessential systems - the whole point is that it grants the ability to shut down essential systems.
So in other words, the only time this would really affect the masses (or be noticeable at all) is if the president decides that ISPs are critical systems that need to be shut down.
Finally, about this part of the summary:
The bill... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.' This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
While this language does appear in the bill, it refers to Federal-owned networks and the so-called "critical" networks.
Again, it all comes down to what "critical" means to the government. If they decide critical means anything they want, then this is the end of the free internet in the U.S.
Ultimately, the bill gives the federal government more power than it needs while making it bigger and more expensive to taxpayers, as well as overburdening small businesses with unnecessary security costs and measures.
I think you've confused what you want to be true with what actually is.
The view of your property from a public vantage (invasive technology aside) is in the public domain. Google is merely cataloging the public domain worldwide, and making it available to everyone. There is nothing wrong or unacceptable about this - and your personal tolerance has no bearing on the subject.
As a borderline tinfoil hat, I'm as paranoid about the end result of all that Google is doing as anyone (the facial scan database makes me go cold) - but I have to admit that they aren't doing anything improper here.
And for the record, "for profit" =/= "for evil": there are plenty of for profit enterprises that provide useful public services - this is one of them.
I take your point, but frankly, anyone who connects command & control system to an external network, let alone The Internet is just asking for trouble.
Bingo.
I can see the need for greater security regarding banks and, well, anyone who asks for your credit card number online, but infrastructure shouldn't even be targetable to begin with. Why do flood control systems need to be connected to the internet? Power generators? I call shenanigans (not on this article, which is real, but on the government). They're talking about infrastructure now, but it's just to get us acclimated to the government messing around with private networks in general.
I knew a cybersecurity czar was coming - it was a point on the president's platform - but I thought it would be security for the government, not interference in private affairs.
What this will do is create expensive, nonsensical regulations that smaller private companies have a difficult time complying with. To me, it seems like the first step in forcing the small-time business offline.
And I think the current study is indeed insightful, because I always become desperate when confronted with small children that simply don't listen to my arguments. Maybe I can use a different approach when handling kids in the future.
Here's a hint: don't make arguments, ask questions that lead the child to your point of view.
Children are (rightly so) a very curious bunch. They love questions; they love asking them and they usually enjoy being asked. I've had kids stop dead right in the middle of temper tantrums when posed with a sufficiently interesting question. You can just about see the gears turning in their heads.
When I want a kid to do something, I ask him a series of simple questions that he can answer with a little thinking, with each question bringing him closer to the realization I want him to have. Near the end, the connection is made and the child usually acts on his own volition. Sometimes a little amiable suggestion is also required.
This method requires a lot of patience, and it's not always possible or prudent for parents tasked with the 24/7 job of raising kids and who often find themselves at wit's end - but for childless people who only have to interact with children occasionally, it works like a charm.
With older (school-age) children, try explaining to them how other people feel about their actions, about the things they could do to make other people more amicable to their interests (and therefore get what they want). Kids really don't think about others - that's something that comes with teenagers (for some, later; for others, never) - so explaining to them how their actions could be tempered in order to ensure more smooth relations with others will often work (unless the kid is a stupid spoiled brat).
I've used that method to instruct kids on why their parents are angry with them, and what they could do to ameliorate that, or how what they are about to do (or trying to do) may end up with their parents getting angry with them. No child wants his parents pissed at him - it's pretty much the #1 aversion. You'd be surprised at how often the child just doesn't realize/think about these things, and when given reasonable advice, chooses to act in a reasonable manner.
Slashdot Mirror
4. this is an excuse to create a mass event, so they can find a reason to 'SECURE THE NET' via EVIL means, ie, only authorized webservers, all ports but 80 blocked, everything logged.
Precisely.
I'll even go one step further and name the evil means: the new cybersecurity bill
After the news has its fun with the "cyberterrorist threat" for a few days, how many people do you think will oppose this ridiculously overbroad bill? What do you think the majority will say to/about those few who still have the sense to object?
Well, there's bound to be a few rednecks who can use computers - I didn't say all of them couldn't.
Also, the site doesn't require a captcha to sign up (that I could find).
Your suggestion is made a moot point because the person would be allowed physical access to the facility with no question because they worked there.
In that situation, no amount of information security is going to help in any case.
That is a straw man argument. No nation on this earth has the power to invade and take over the U.S. Even if they could somehow get past the physical isolation of the country and it's ginormous military and move in a large occupying force, they'd find a hostile, technically capable, and armed populace who wouldn't stand for it.
The choices we have are between U.S. fascism with some terrorist attacks, and U.S. liberty with slightly more terrorist attacks. Out of those two, which would you pick?
Pfft. Like rednecks are going to sign up for anything that requires a captcha to begin with. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of them knew how to turn on the "magic thinking box" (nevermind get online).
Let's retry your terribly inaccurate example:
I wasn't going to buy a Mercedes in the first place, it doesn't matter if I instantly create a duplicate copy of one on the spot at no cost to anyone and drive off with it.
That's a much more apt example.
I'll agree that artwork open to interpretation won't work, ascii or otherwise.
But what about simple rebuses? Only two to three images that when spoken aloud sound like another word. A little more mental effort, perhaps, but easier on the eyes and virtually impossible for present-day computers.
American culture by comparison is...
We have culture? Who knew?
Life expectancy represents an average statistic - it includes infant mortality and accidental/violent deaths (which occurs in the early 20's more often than not).
The U.S. has a lot of accidental/violent deaths. Gang violence in the inner cities, 3500 people every month in car accidents, over 1000 people every year from bringing electrical appliances into the bath with them (I shit you not). Hence, the lower life expectancy.
No worries, we're not socializing medicine.
I believe the plan is to (eventually) offer low-cost federal insurance that allows us to actually get to choose our own doctor. It's not mandatory, either - if we're insured under our employer or wealthy enough to afford our own insurance, we can choose that instead. There's been talk of making insurance mandatory only for children.
No one is getting free medical care in the U.S. - except those on medicare/medicaid (and that system needs a serious overhaul).
This article just pertains to step 1 of Obama's plan, which is to reduce costs so that the government can actually afford to offer subsidized insurance.
Yeah, I'm with you on that one.
Well, for minor infringement I'd accept a 30 year sentence followed by a "constitution offender" registration.
The problem with sending out information to a third party is that you automatically lose the right to withhold said information on the grounds that it's self-incriminating, and search & seizure laws no longer apply (no one needs a warrant to take it).
If you're going to have backups off-site, better to send it to a server you own and operate, or an offshore server you only access through anonymous proxy.
If you're good at hiding things, then you're probably better off with a copy hidden at home. An SD card will fit into a remote in lieu of batteries, or a zippo with the stuffing taken out (search warrants don't apply to your person). A USB drive can fit easily into a cigarette pack, or - if you're really paranoid - inside a light switch socket.
Yah, sure, why not? The only time I put money in the bank is when I have to pay the utility companies anyway. If I left money in there they could use it to lend out more loans they can't back up.
I really, really miss the Wild Wild Web. I don't see why it can't just stay that way. Fuck commerce. They can make money the old fashioned way, and we can have our international communications network.
SCOTUS can only rule on cases that are brought to it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something in this bill you could sue the government over that wouldn't just get nullified by sovereign immunity anyway.
Yep. Two terms for senators, four for congressmen sounds about right. Congress briefly considered imposing term limits on themselves some years back, but then decided that it probably wasn't in their best interest.
Beyond that, we need blind elections (no party or incumbent designation on the ballot). This would make it much easier for minority parties to get into power and break up the dual monoparty system we have now.
We have three major minority parties in the U.S. right now (Green, Libertarian, Constitutional), and while their platforms vary greatly, they all have one thing in common - they all want a smaller federal government.
Yes, yes, everybody here is familiar with that sentiment. My issue is, I would never sacrifice freedom for (supposed) security - so why am I having it taken away from me anyway?
Not really. I was already dreading the up-and-coming anti-terror legislation while watching the news on Sept. 11, 2001.
I've never been afraid of terrorism in this country. It's too big, it's too spread out: terrorists would be lucky to pull off an escapade once in a decade that would cause as much loss of life as traffic accidents cause every month.
To be fair, Snowe is my senator, and she's not really a Republican. I'm pretty sure she runs as a Republican just so she can break from her party whenever there's a partisan issue. Sort of like senatorial sabotage.
Nah. Democrats don't censor; they socialize and overregulate. Although the net result may be the same (lack of availability).
"We're not banning anything - we're making sure this is used properly by everyone. Now, please file your form for your network ID to get access to your internet ration. What? You don't already have your internet ration? Well then, we can't issue you your ID."
I've just scanned the 51-page bill and concluded that the summary is hyperbolic, at the least.
The bill addresses concerns over cyberterrorism, creates a review panel that serves in an advisory role to the president, tracks potential computer science & cybersecurity students from kindergarten on (and offers them incentives and inclusion in summer government programs), offers to split the costs of cybersecurity with small businesses and nonprofits for at least the first 3 years, and finally, authorizes the president to shut down "federal and United States critical systems" in the advent of an emergency situation.
It's that last one that's bothering folks, especially since emergency isn't well defined - but a state of emergency is never well defined; it's pretty much whatever the president says it is and it's always been that way.
My issue is the lack of definition of "critical systems". From the bill, it can be inferred that critical systems pertain to utilities and financial institutions, but it's never explicitly defined.
In any case, nowhere is there mentioned the ability to shut down nonessential systems - the whole point is that it grants the ability to shut down essential systems.
So in other words, the only time this would really affect the masses (or be noticeable at all) is if the president decides that ISPs are critical systems that need to be shut down.
Finally, about this part of the summary:
The bill... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.' This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
While this language does appear in the bill, it refers to Federal-owned networks and the so-called "critical" networks.
Again, it all comes down to what "critical" means to the government. If they decide critical means anything they want, then this is the end of the free internet in the U.S.
Ultimately, the bill gives the federal government more power than it needs while making it bigger and more expensive to taxpayers, as well as overburdening small businesses with unnecessary security costs and measures.
Y'know, if I had a house, and it ended up on Google, I'd tell everyone I knew "Hey! My house is on Google! Check it out!"
Seriously, who cares? If you didn't want people to be able to see your house, maybe you should have put it underground or something.
I think you've confused what you want to be true with what actually is.
The view of your property from a public vantage (invasive technology aside) is in the public domain. Google is merely cataloging the public domain worldwide, and making it available to everyone. There is nothing wrong or unacceptable about this - and your personal tolerance has no bearing on the subject.
As a borderline tinfoil hat, I'm as paranoid about the end result of all that Google is doing as anyone (the facial scan database makes me go cold) - but I have to admit that they aren't doing anything improper here.
And for the record, "for profit" =/= "for evil": there are plenty of for profit enterprises that provide useful public services - this is one of them.
I just wanted someone to undo all that had been done in the last eight years. It seems I'll not even get that.
So tell me, which of the two allowed parties do I vote for for a smaller, less centralized government that makes civil liberties paramount?
I take your point, but frankly, anyone who connects command & control system to an external network, let alone The Internet is just asking for trouble.
Bingo.
I can see the need for greater security regarding banks and, well, anyone who asks for your credit card number online, but infrastructure shouldn't even be targetable to begin with. Why do flood control systems need to be connected to the internet? Power generators? I call shenanigans (not on this article, which is real, but on the government). They're talking about infrastructure now, but it's just to get us acclimated to the government messing around with private networks in general.
I knew a cybersecurity czar was coming - it was a point on the president's platform - but I thought it would be security for the government, not interference in private affairs.
What this will do is create expensive, nonsensical regulations that smaller private companies have a difficult time complying with. To me, it seems like the first step in forcing the small-time business offline.
And I think the current study is indeed insightful, because I always become desperate when confronted with small children that simply don't listen to my arguments. Maybe I can use a different approach when handling kids in the future.
Here's a hint: don't make arguments, ask questions that lead the child to your point of view.
Children are (rightly so) a very curious bunch. They love questions; they love asking them and they usually enjoy being asked. I've had kids stop dead right in the middle of temper tantrums when posed with a sufficiently interesting question. You can just about see the gears turning in their heads.
When I want a kid to do something, I ask him a series of simple questions that he can answer with a little thinking, with each question bringing him closer to the realization I want him to have. Near the end, the connection is made and the child usually acts on his own volition. Sometimes a little amiable suggestion is also required.
This method requires a lot of patience, and it's not always possible or prudent for parents tasked with the 24/7 job of raising kids and who often find themselves at wit's end - but for childless people who only have to interact with children occasionally, it works like a charm.
With older (school-age) children, try explaining to them how other people feel about their actions, about the things they could do to make other people more amicable to their interests (and therefore get what they want). Kids really don't think about others - that's something that comes with teenagers (for some, later; for others, never) - so explaining to them how their actions could be tempered in order to ensure more smooth relations with others will often work (unless the kid is a stupid spoiled brat).
I've used that method to instruct kids on why their parents are angry with them, and what they could do to ameliorate that, or how what they are about to do (or trying to do) may end up with their parents getting angry with them. No child wants his parents pissed at him - it's pretty much the #1 aversion. You'd be surprised at how often the child just doesn't realize/think about these things, and when given reasonable advice, chooses to act in a reasonable manner.