If you read the New York Times article (free reg., you know you want to!), nowhere does it actually say "Bush wants an unhackable network." That, my friends, would be a great Christmas wish. However, what the article says is the Bush administration is considering making a government-only, always-closely-monitored network. They want a "less vulnerable" network, which I'm sure they realize is still hackable (as is implied by saying it will be constantly scanned for viruses, etc.). Their network in its current state is too difficult to shield, so they want something a little easier to defend. I don't see the problem with this.
I was a bit disappointed that/.'s headline skewed many readers' perceptions of the article it was referencing. What's up? Have you been watching too much CNN?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the New York Times article (free reg., you know you want to!), nowhere does it actually say "Bush wants an unhackable network." That, my friends, would be a great Christmas wish. However, what the article says is the Bush administration is considering making a government-only, always-closely-monitored network. They want a "less vulnerable" network, which I'm sure they realize is still hackable (as is implied by saying it will be constantly scanned for viruses, etc.). Their network in its current state is too difficult to shield, so they want something a little easier to defend. I don't see the problem with this.
/.'s headline skewed many readers' perceptions of the article it was referencing. What's up? Have you been watching too much CNN? :-)
I was a bit disappointed that