"It sounds like great technology but don't deploy it without considering the security implications. With any new product area there is a need to consider security," said Campbell.
How about we not worry about userland programs being "insecure" when the real issue is that the malware was installed on the machine in the first place. Just because the desktop search features can index a large amount of personal data does not mean it's a security issue... The security issue is something entirely different and needs to be treated as such.
Are we supposed to just suffer through computer-use because Microsoft and its users are lax about security so that life is easier?
Dimension Data's Campbell said that if companies do choose to deploy desktop search tools, they should take extra care to ensure viruses do not get a chance to execute on the desktop.
Companies like who? Microsoft right? Oh wait, we are supposed to just live with how shitty Windows is at userlevel security right?
This article was a bunch of trash and really was speculation more than anything else. Move along, there's nothing to see here...
Umm, no, it's a browser. That other shit is called bloat. Browsers moved through pages, refreshed pages, and displayed images just fine for years before we became obsessed w/"pleasurable" web browsing.
I don't need any of that and no one else does either.
bookmarks, if they were searchable i think that would be a big improvement. i collect so many they get hard to manage.
Personally what I'd like to see is something with no bloat. I don't need mouse gestures, tabbed windows, themes, skins, bookmarks, etc. What I need is a browser that displays images quickly, doesn't crash, isn't a haven for malware, looks identical to how IE renders pages, isn't by Microsoft or the Firefox team (as both browsers suck IMHO), and still lets me get what I need done 110% of the time.
I also want it to take up a miniscule amount of RAM. Not everyone has more than 256MB and we shouldn't be expected to.
He will let you be free, but you have to suffer the consequences.
Just because his actions creep you out (that crooked smile and that detached wonder he seems to have) does not mean that he has to look like The Crow in a purple robe or a hollow eyed heroin addict.
None of this encoding my life history on the card, or letting my card broadcast my identification to everyone sitting on the bus with me. This state has it right. If the cop wants my information, he can stop me and ask me for it. The things on the computer readable portion are on the card anyway, so it lets the cop scan me in and let me go on my merry way faster, without the hassle of having my DL number mistyped and coming up as some wanted murderer.
As long as private companies (like liquor stores) cannot ask you to let them scan your license and store it in a database. I don't even want them to have my birthdate stored (I won't even give my zipcode when asked).
I scratch the hell out of the bar on the back of my license to keep these readers from working.
Police officers are one thing (as you are normally stopped for actually doing something illegal) but liquor stores compiling purchasers data (remember they can tie CC's to your DL info if they have it scanned within the same minute as the CC transaction).
Music can be played (Windows Media), and voice commands can be assigned to switches, e.g., "flaps up"
I would find it incredibly distracting trying to fly my plane and hear someone nearby have "what's your vector Victor" come out of their remote control everytime it updates the screen:)
Oh yeah, I forgot. Someone worked a way round the bogus encryption and region coding and DVD-player vendor lockout last time round, so we've all got to dump our perfectly good DVDs and our DVD players and throw more money at film studio execs and consumer hardware manufacturers. Silly me.
Nice. I didn't even think of that. Problem here is that the DVD format is so popular that I really have little expectations for people to immediately upgrade to the latest and greatest thing.
Most people I know have been slowly amassing a large collection of DVDs mostly because they are inexpensive and there are a TON of titles out there.
Like I mentioned before in this topic I just can't see Blu-ray discs being as inexpensive and as widely available as DVD. Most people just aren't going to be interested in the small quality upgrade for more money.
I think it'll be somewhat like it is today: The smaller number of people with the space/time/hardware to rip+convert the discs will do the hard work, and then place the smaller files out there in a more universal format to be distributed.
I'm not talking about downloading and burning movies that originated on Blu-ray. I'm talking about buying a movie on Blu-ray and modifying it so that it is comfortable for me to watch.
If I buy the Star Wars Trilogy DVD for my fiance for Christmas and it is three DVDs with a 30 minute unskippable intro you can bet your ass that I'm storing the originals and ripping out the crap and reburning to a DVDr.
Blu-ray Discs can store up to 50GB of data on a dual-sided disc. That's significantly higher than the 4.7GB capacity of the DVD format Blu-ray is looking to succeed.
Yippee! Even more room to store lengthy commercials for other "limited edition gold/platinum" DVDs of re-released animated movies from 40+ years ago. There's nothing I enjoy more than paying money to rent a movie and sitting through 15 minutes of advertisements because the DVD won't allow the player to skip forward through that crap. Disney said its plans to release movies on the Blu-ray format are nonexclusive, meaning it could publish movies on other formats as well.
If other formats can hold more and can lock out the DVD player even better than they wouldn't want to eliminate the possibilities of moving to that format now would they?
"The studios will come around to the superior format," Peterson said. "Capacity and picture quality are directly related."
The studios will come around to whatever is cheaper for them to produce/distribute their materials while still being competitive/profitable and staying within their business model (whether that is adding 15+ minutes of commercials to all their DVDs and not allowing DVD players to fast-forward through them or not).
Also, the larger the capacity the greater the troubles in ripping/modifying/burning the discs. If the discs hold 50GB you need a 100+GB HD to do any modifications to the movie before reburning it. By changing the formats you are less likely to have the hardware to burn that format and thereby lose the ability to do what you did with regular DVDs once the burner prices dropped well under $100.
I'm sure they figure it will be several more years before blu-ray DVD writers and extremely large HDs will become common enough for everyone to make their DVD viewing experiences on DVDs they purchased acceptable.
The DVD technology has become the most successful consumer technology ever because of the re-release of older movies on the new format for what consumers have deemed reasonable prices. Are all these movies going to be again released on Blu-ray/DVD-HD for the same prices?
I see a good possibility that most people won't give a shit one way or the other and will likely keep buying the media that is even more inexpensive. It all depends on your willingness to accept/adapt new technologies and your need for a better movie watching experience. Obviously DVD is far superior to VHS. Will Blu-ray and DVD-HD have a similar quality increase?
Unfortunately, the people who use mod chips for strictly legal uses occupy that alternate reality where people really read Playboy for the articles and governments keep atom bombs around just to make hot cocoa.
Unfortunately it shouldn't be allowed to matter. Microsoft can claim that we are just licensing the inexpensive hardware to play the expensive games but they shouldn't be allowed to dictate what we do to that hardware.
Just because the mod-chip scene is generally for modifying the hardware to copy games that you haven't purchased doesn't mean it should be illegal to buy, sell, or modify hardware that includes them. The argument has been made 1000s of times here about item X having a legitimate purpose but that it can also be used for purposes other than what it was intended for yet those items are still legal.
Let's concentrate on the fact that they were arrested for offering 15+ games on the device that weren't legal. Let's not concentrate on the mod-chip at all.
But let`s be honest. 99% of modded Xbox and PS1/2 serve a lone purpose : playing games without paying for them.
If these people hadn't pre-loaded the devices with games this would have been a completely different story.
Let's not fall into the "oh, it must have been piracy so it's ok" thing. Mod-chips serve a purpose and should be legal. If you are using a mod-chip to steal games then that's your own thing but certainly don't give them the satisfaction of saying that everyone mods for burning games.
Personally I'm waiting for the XBox2 to come out and everyone to drop their XBox1's on Ebay so I can get them cheap as hell for a media center machine.
We should require by law that when a spyware application installs itself, it must uninstall another spyware application without damaging the host system, and further that it put itself into add/remove programs. Just because it is listed in Add/Remove Software doesn't mean it is removed entirely.
Does it really matter? I know that 90% of the people I work with are morons. They don't do their jobs correctly so I should somehow expect them to send a grammatically correct email without any spelling errors?
Personally I don't care if the email is spelled correctly or is grammatically correct as long as it includes the information I need to do my job effectively.
Yes the internet is a great way to distribute music. However this does not mean its OK to download music without the creators permission. It is their choice where and how their creation is made available, not yours.
Technically it's not even their descision to make. It's up to the distributers as they own the rights.
I just wish that more artists would realize the benefits of allowing the free distribution of their music.
I've bought Epson, Lexmark, HP, and Canon stuff before. I've gotta say I liked Canon the best, as far as the quality, lifespan, and corporate policies. Anyone else have the same preference (and/or hatred of of one).
I have bought all the same except Lexmark as they were the first to underprice their printers and overprice their ink... Now it seems that all the printer manufactorers have found that it is more profitable to own the hell out of their customers with cheap hardware and expensive ink.
I have gone so far as to put my nearly brand-new HP printer in the closet and not use it. If my 7 year old HP Deskjet 400C hadn't physically broken down I'd still be using that (along with the 2nd ink cartridge in as many years -- through college and all the papers it brought BTW).
In 1.5 years with my new HP I have cleared 3 ink cartridges (and it won't just print black if you only put in the black cartridge -- it requires the color one as well) without having to write a 10 page paper a week.
Personally I'll be keeping my images posted on my website and off the shelves in my house until the companies realize that what they are doing sucks.
so much for the paperless office (although that was a pipe dream anyway.)
We are doing our very best to make that happen here where I work. All student files are put onto the document imaging system *after* they withdraw from the college.
We would LOVE to make it completely paperless (and are ~50% capable of doing just that) but the problem is that a lot of people are weary of not having a physical piece of paper to handle when doing their jobs. It's very hard to break them of their desire for that. Personally my job would be a shitload easier if we didn't have any paper. Other than a signature (which could be done via some other means) the students shouldn't have to touch a pen at all.
What I always wondered was if the software/hardware licensing fees necessary to facilitate a paperless office outweighed the benefits... As we approach the feasibility of the "paperless office" it may do just that.
And that's exactly what companies do when they interview you. I have personally had three interviews and found that typically *after* you have the interview a Google referrer shows up in your logs from the interviewing company.
I know one guy on IRC that interviewed with a company and they spent a good amount of time passing around the link to his gallery (mostly pertaining to the pictures of the large gauges in his ears).
One interviewer checked my site before I came in (and I knew it) and he said that they didn't hire pot smokers. He assumed I was a pot smoker because I was a Grateful Dead fan.
Just remember that you may or may not be hired due to interpretations of your "web presence" regardless of whether or not it's actually how you live your life.
The US government is not paranoid about terrorism (though many citizens are, especially in the Red States). Terrorism is just a smokescreen. A boogyman that lets the government do as it pleases. A monster in the closet to be whipped out everytime the populace decides to get uppity or question the actions or motivations of those in charge.
I didn't state that the US Government was paranoid about it. I said that the United States was.
If only you had read one more paragraph before posting:
Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of.
Scanning for planes on bombs will HELP prevent things like those that occured in Russia recently, in which their planes were BOMBED.
That wasn't my point. My point was that no matter what measures we take they will always come up with something that will work within the guidelines we create.
Too many people list McCarthyism without understanding what it really was.
I am well of aware of what it was. I was talking about the reaction of the public to the "threat" created by the government. I would have used "Soviet Threat" by itself but the problem with that it doesn't explain the true paranoia caused. Going so far as to report your own parents if they are communist.
"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."
So the Internet can be full of organized corruption? Pay offs, rules only followed by those that don't have enough money and power?
If there is data accessible via the Internet that "terrorists" could use to "attack" us then that data needs to be moved off of the Internet. The general public should be allowed to travel around without restrictions or control.
Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."
What exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that an open consortium should sit down and discuss how we should build a more secure network that is still able to communicate like the old one? Or does he mean that we should all be locked down with hardware and software tied with "trusted computing" which will lead to further domination by a small group of companies?
Personally, I believe that the United States needs to understand that they aren't the only entity in the world and that they cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about "terrorism". What would have happened if the Internet was this popular during McCarthyism? Would we have had to make sure we were all secure because of the over-inflated threat that the Soviet Scare created?
Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of. No matter what we do they will always find a way to circumvent our methods (ie scanning for bombs on planes when instead they used the plane as the bomb itself or checking for the outlines of guns and knives when they used a boxcutter).
Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?
He wants government control where government control is unnecessary. What they need is to stay out of the lives of the public and keep up with the protection of the entities that they already have control over. Sorry but Big Brother doesn't do anything but piss people off. I highly doubt that the "threat" is going to attack us through private channels over asymmetric broadband connections and dialup modems.
I realize it is difficult for someone living their life in a position of authority in the high ranks of a government funded organization to understand what the people want but that's exactly why his comments need to be fought tooth and nail.
I'll end my rant with: Keep your fucking own data safe from the "threat" without infringing on the freedoms created without government control.
Slashdot Mirror
"It sounds like great technology but don't deploy it without considering the security implications. With any new product area there is a need to consider security," said Campbell.
How about we not worry about userland programs being "insecure" when the real issue is that the malware was installed on the machine in the first place. Just because the desktop search features can index a large amount of personal data does not mean it's a security issue... The security issue is something entirely different and needs to be treated as such.
Are we supposed to just suffer through computer-use because Microsoft and its users are lax about security so that life is easier?
Dimension Data's Campbell said that if companies do choose to deploy desktop search tools, they should take extra care to ensure viruses do not get a chance to execute on the desktop.
Companies like who? Microsoft right? Oh wait, we are supposed to just live with how shitty Windows is at userlevel security right?
This article was a bunch of trash and really was speculation more than anything else. Move along, there's nothing to see here...
Umm, no, it's a browser. That other shit is called bloat. Browsers moved through pages, refreshed pages, and displayed images just fine for years before we became obsessed w/"pleasurable" web browsing.
I don't need any of that and no one else does either.
I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "stripped down" version of Mozilla. Running faster, being less bloated, and having less features...
Now it's the same?
bookmarks, if they were searchable i think that would be a big improvement. i collect so many they get hard to manage.
Personally what I'd like to see is something with no bloat. I don't need mouse gestures, tabbed windows, themes, skins, bookmarks, etc. What I need is a browser that displays images quickly, doesn't crash, isn't a haven for malware, looks identical to how IE renders pages, isn't by Microsoft or the Firefox team (as both browsers suck IMHO), and still lets me get what I need done 110% of the time.
I also want it to take up a miniscule amount of RAM. Not everyone has more than 256MB and we shouldn't be expected to.
He will let you be free, but you have to suffer the consequences.
Just because his actions creep you out (that crooked smile and that detached wonder he seems to have) does not mean that he has to look like The Crow in a purple robe or a hollow eyed heroin addict.
That has to be the number 1 druggy movie ever.
:)
No, but you were close as Johnny Depp acted in that one... Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas although I thought the book was much better.
Nothing will ever be better than the Family Guy's Willy Wonka remake as Wasted Talent
None of this encoding my life history on the card, or letting my card broadcast my identification to everyone sitting on the bus with me. This state has it right. If the cop wants my information, he can stop me and ask me for it. The things on the computer readable portion are on the card anyway, so it lets the cop scan me in and let me go on my merry way faster, without the hassle of having my DL number mistyped and coming up as some wanted murderer.
As long as private companies (like liquor stores) cannot ask you to let them scan your license and store it in a database. I don't even want them to have my birthdate stored (I won't even give my zipcode when asked).
I scratch the hell out of the bar on the back of my license to keep these readers from working.
Police officers are one thing (as you are normally stopped for actually doing something illegal) but liquor stores compiling purchasers data (remember they can tie CC's to your DL info if they have it scanned within the same minute as the CC transaction).
No thanks.
Hmm, I'm waiting for someone to post pictures of their iPod with the apple.slashdot.org icons all over the place.
:)
Then the 9th level of circular hell will be complete!
Music can be played (Windows Media), and voice commands can be assigned to switches, e.g., "flaps up"
:)
I would find it incredibly distracting trying to fly my plane and hear someone nearby have "what's your vector Victor" come out of their remote control everytime it updates the screen
Marty: "you've got that thing hooked up to the...car?"
Oh yeah, I forgot. Someone worked a way round the bogus encryption and region coding and DVD-player vendor lockout last time round, so we've all got to dump our perfectly good DVDs and our DVD players and throw more money at film studio execs and consumer hardware manufacturers. Silly me.
Nice. I didn't even think of that. Problem here is that the DVD format is so popular that I really have little expectations for people to immediately upgrade to the latest and greatest thing.
Most people I know have been slowly amassing a large collection of DVDs mostly because they are inexpensive and there are a TON of titles out there.
Like I mentioned before in this topic I just can't see Blu-ray discs being as inexpensive and as widely available as DVD. Most people just aren't going to be interested in the small quality upgrade for more money.
I think it'll be somewhat like it is today: The smaller number of people with the space/time/hardware to rip+convert the discs will do the hard work, and then place the smaller files out there in a more universal format to be distributed.
I'm not talking about downloading and burning movies that originated on Blu-ray. I'm talking about buying a movie on Blu-ray and modifying it so that it is comfortable for me to watch.
If I buy the Star Wars Trilogy DVD for my fiance for Christmas and it is three DVDs with a 30 minute unskippable intro you can bet your ass that I'm storing the originals and ripping out the crap and reburning to a DVDr.
Blu-ray Discs can store up to 50GB of data on a dual-sided disc. That's significantly higher than the 4.7GB capacity of the DVD format Blu-ray is looking to succeed.
Yippee! Even more room to store lengthy commercials for other "limited edition gold/platinum" DVDs of re-released animated movies from 40+ years ago. There's nothing I enjoy more than paying money to rent a movie and sitting through 15 minutes of advertisements because the DVD won't allow the player to skip forward through that crap.
Disney said its plans to release movies on the Blu-ray format are nonexclusive, meaning it could publish movies on other formats as well.
If other formats can hold more and can lock out the DVD player even better than they wouldn't want to eliminate the possibilities of moving to that format now would they?
"The studios will come around to the superior format," Peterson said. "Capacity and picture quality are directly related."
The studios will come around to whatever is cheaper for them to produce/distribute their materials while still being competitive/profitable and staying within their business model (whether that is adding 15+ minutes of commercials to all their DVDs and not allowing DVD players to fast-forward through them or not).
Also, the larger the capacity the greater the troubles in ripping/modifying/burning the discs. If the discs hold 50GB you need a 100+GB HD to do any modifications to the movie before reburning it. By changing the formats you are less likely to have the hardware to burn that format and thereby lose the ability to do what you did with regular DVDs once the burner prices dropped well under $100.
I'm sure they figure it will be several more years before blu-ray DVD writers and extremely large HDs will become common enough for everyone to make their DVD viewing experiences on DVDs they purchased acceptable.
The DVD technology has become the most successful consumer technology ever because of the re-release of older movies on the new format for what consumers have deemed reasonable prices. Are all these movies going to be again released on Blu-ray/DVD-HD for the same prices?
I see a good possibility that most people won't give a shit one way or the other and will likely keep buying the media that is even more inexpensive. It all depends on your willingness to accept/adapt new technologies and your need for a better movie watching experience. Obviously DVD is far superior to VHS. Will Blu-ray and DVD-HD have a similar quality increase?
Unfortunately, the people who use mod chips for strictly legal uses occupy that alternate reality where people really read Playboy for the articles and governments keep atom bombs around just to make hot cocoa.
Unfortunately it shouldn't be allowed to matter. Microsoft can claim that we are just licensing the inexpensive hardware to play the expensive games but they shouldn't be allowed to dictate what we do to that hardware.
Just because the mod-chip scene is generally for modifying the hardware to copy games that you haven't purchased doesn't mean it should be illegal to buy, sell, or modify hardware that includes them. The argument has been made 1000s of times here about item X having a legitimate purpose but that it can also be used for purposes other than what it was intended for yet those items are still legal.
Let's concentrate on the fact that they were arrested for offering 15+ games on the device that weren't legal. Let's not concentrate on the mod-chip at all.
But let`s be honest. 99% of modded Xbox and PS1/2 serve a lone purpose : playing games without paying for them.
If these people hadn't pre-loaded the devices with games this would have been a completely different story.
Let's not fall into the "oh, it must have been piracy so it's ok" thing. Mod-chips serve a purpose and should be legal. If you are using a mod-chip to steal games then that's your own thing but certainly don't give them the satisfaction of saying that everyone mods for burning games.
Personally I'm waiting for the XBox2 to come out and everyone to drop their XBox1's on Ebay so I can get them cheap as hell for a media center machine.
We should require by law that when a spyware application installs itself, it must uninstall another spyware application without damaging the host system, and further that it put itself into add/remove programs.
Just because it is listed in Add/Remove Software doesn't mean it is removed entirely.
Does it really matter? I know that 90% of the people I work with are morons. They don't do their jobs correctly so I should somehow expect them to send a grammatically correct email without any spelling errors?
Personally I don't care if the email is spelled correctly or is grammatically correct as long as it includes the information I need to do my job effectively.
Personally I thought that Bush used that sequence for "God Mode".
IMPULSE 255
Yes the internet is a great way to distribute music. However this does not mean its OK to download music without the creators permission. It is their choice where and how their creation is made available, not yours.
Technically it's not even their descision to make. It's up to the distributers as they own the rights.
I just wish that more artists would realize the benefits of allowing the free distribution of their music.
I've bought Epson, Lexmark, HP, and Canon stuff before. I've gotta say I liked Canon the best, as far as the quality, lifespan, and corporate policies. Anyone else have the same preference (and/or hatred of of one).
I have bought all the same except Lexmark as they were the first to underprice their printers and overprice their ink... Now it seems that all the printer manufactorers have found that it is more profitable to own the hell out of their customers with cheap hardware and expensive ink.
I have gone so far as to put my nearly brand-new HP printer in the closet and not use it. If my 7 year old HP Deskjet 400C hadn't physically broken down I'd still be using that (along with the 2nd ink cartridge in as many years -- through college and all the papers it brought BTW).
In 1.5 years with my new HP I have cleared 3 ink cartridges (and it won't just print black if you only put in the black cartridge -- it requires the color one as well) without having to write a 10 page paper a week.
Personally I'll be keeping my images posted on my website and off the shelves in my house until the companies realize that what they are doing sucks.
so much for the paperless office (although that was a pipe dream anyway.)
We are doing our very best to make that happen here where I work. All student files are put onto the document imaging system *after* they withdraw from the college.
We would LOVE to make it completely paperless (and are ~50% capable of doing just that) but the problem is that a lot of people are weary of not having a physical piece of paper to handle when doing their jobs. It's very hard to break them of their desire for that. Personally my job would be a shitload easier if we didn't have any paper. Other than a signature (which could be done via some other means) the students shouldn't have to touch a pen at all.
What I always wondered was if the software/hardware licensing fees necessary to facilitate a paperless office outweighed the benefits... As we approach the feasibility of the "paperless office" it may do just that.
And that's exactly what companies do when they interview you. I have personally had three interviews and found that typically *after* you have the interview a Google referrer shows up in your logs from the interviewing company.
I know one guy on IRC that interviewed with a company and they spent a good amount of time passing around the link to his gallery (mostly pertaining to the pictures of the large gauges in his ears).
One interviewer checked my site before I came in (and I knew it) and he said that they didn't hire pot smokers. He assumed I was a pot smoker because I was a Grateful Dead fan.
Just remember that you may or may not be hired due to interpretations of your "web presence" regardless of whether or not it's actually how you live your life.
The US government is not paranoid about terrorism (though many citizens are, especially in the Red States). Terrorism is just a smokescreen. A boogyman that lets the government do as it pleases. A monster in the closet to be whipped out everytime the populace decides to get uppity or question the actions or motivations of those in charge.
I didn't state that the US Government was paranoid about it. I said that the United States was.
If only you had read one more paragraph before posting:
Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of.
Scanning for planes on bombs will HELP prevent things like those that occured in Russia recently, in which their planes were BOMBED.
That wasn't my point. My point was that no matter what measures we take they will always come up with something that will work within the guidelines we create.
Too many people list McCarthyism without understanding what it really was.
I am well of aware of what it was. I was talking about the reaction of the public to the "threat" created by the government. I would have used "Soviet Threat" by itself but the problem with that it doesn't explain the true paranoia caused. Going so far as to report your own parents if they are communist.
"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."
So the Internet can be full of organized corruption? Pay offs, rules only followed by those that don't have enough money and power?
If there is data accessible via the Internet that "terrorists" could use to "attack" us then that data needs to be moved off of the Internet. The general public should be allowed to travel around without restrictions or control.
Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."
What exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that an open consortium should sit down and discuss how we should build a more secure network that is still able to communicate like the old one? Or does he mean that we should all be locked down with hardware and software tied with "trusted computing" which will lead to further domination by a small group of companies?
Personally, I believe that the United States needs to understand that they aren't the only entity in the world and that they cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about "terrorism". What would have happened if the Internet was this popular during McCarthyism? Would we have had to make sure we were all secure because of the over-inflated threat that the Soviet Scare created?
Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of. No matter what we do they will always find a way to circumvent our methods (ie scanning for bombs on planes when instead they used the plane as the bomb itself or checking for the outlines of guns and knives when they used a boxcutter).
Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?
He wants government control where government control is unnecessary. What they need is to stay out of the lives of the public and keep up with the protection of the entities that they already have control over. Sorry but Big Brother doesn't do anything but piss people off. I highly doubt that the "threat" is going to attack us through private channels over asymmetric broadband connections and dialup modems.
I realize it is difficult for someone living their life in a position of authority in the high ranks of a government funded organization to understand what the people want but that's exactly why his comments need to be fought tooth and nail.
I'll end my rant with: Keep your fucking own data safe from the "threat" without infringing on the freedoms created without government control.