Consider that we're dealing with DHS, the largest organization within the US Gov... and they were just formed out of a bunch of large US Gov organizations that have little to no track record of playing well together. DHS is distracted by it's own internal problems and they have little energy to spend on solving the problems of local first responders. They have leadership with significant attitude as well, not to mention that they think that their authority means they know it all too... They believe they are Large and in Charge...
DHS is headed by "Big-Bang" specialists that, once they get around to it, will attempt to devise a large centralized plan that they will attempt to roll out or roll over on the first responders... some day in the far distant future. Remember the line, Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm hear to help... Well, be afraid, be very afraid.
DHS will follow the same pattern that large Government orgs have been following for years. What they won't do is actually help to facilitate local first responders any time soon. They're just too distracted getting organized to pay too much attention to the little guys.
States and big cities are going to be on their own for some time and even with good direction, coordination, and leadership from DHS, it will still be the local governments that will have to do the heavy lifting. Local governments should realize that it's their business in the first place to protect their local populations. If your local governments are sitting around waiting for the DHS to move, I suggest that you pay close attention to this topic next time you vote for your state and local representatives. They are the ones with direct influence over the first responders that your life may depend on.
It ain't over 'til the Appeals Process has run it's course... No, Wait! Congress (the opposite of Progress, btw) could trump the whole thing with new law.
Did you know that your cell phone conversations are not protected as private confidential conversations under the law? If you tell someone or your lawyer something confidential while either one of you is on a cell, you're not protected.
What's the difference between an overseas call (call into or out of the US) that is monitored from within the borders of the US or outside?
Ease? Convienience? Think about it.
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Remember, this is the same government that you elected...
or if you didn't vote and don't participate...
Remember, this is the same government that you allowed to be elected through you inaction and nonparticipation and... Remember, this is the same government that at one time, anyway, was our government, of and by and for the people...
Maybe if we gave a crap and expended half as much energy as we use bitching about our government, participating in OUR government, maybe, just maybe, we'd have one we could be proud to call ours again.
Of course we'd have to grow up and act like adults and take responsibility for ourselves before that happens, so, well, just never mind. Have some more kool-aid, put your feet up, watch some more news coverage delivered by some of the most briliant minds on the planet. Consider that you might just have the governemtn you deserve.
YES, is the right answer. You have the right idea, but I'm not sure you've got the right twist. I'm not sure either if there's enough space or time to capture all the issues here either. The students did the deed, but they are students and are irresponsible and immature. Some of that is because of who they are and where they are in life. Some is a failing on the parts of their role models and upbringing. What does one do with children that act up? The adware folks have a business model that is abusive and promotes illegal behavior. Moreover, the whole concept of appropriating other peoples property for your own gains is trespass and theft and that's what they do when they load their crapware on your computer. This seems to be the most clear cut case for action. The "victims" in this case are guilty of ignorance and stupidity, or do we have the right victims identified? What about the people who's lives were placed at risk? The mere fact that such a critical network (if what I read was truly the case) of computers that control critical systems should never be accessible from the network, and I'm not even going to begin the discussion of someone's life being dependent on the reliable and continuous operation of a windows based computer (read the ULA some time and you'll see). We have enough of a health care crisis without taking those sorts of risks. I for one will be looking the next time I or anyone that I care about goes to a health care provider or a hospital to see if lives are dependant on such a dangerous and ignorant application of hobby-toy technology....We are sorry to inform you of the death of your loved one. We got a virus over the network in the xBox we were using for life support and it took us too long to remove it and reboot the system...
I accept your additional references, and a more careful reading of subsection (B) leads me to consider that your position is defensible, and mine may be less so. I was admittedly hasty on my lunch hour, but the construction of (B) still troubles me because it is less precise than (A).
It does not say or indicate 'any computer capable of...', but indicates that it is a computer "which is used in..." and this may still assume an official capacity or official recognition or qualification of the computing asset. A clean bright line as guidance for application of Amendment 10 would be most useful. If 'all inclusiveness' was the intent in the same way that "exclusively for the use of..." is used in (A), then I would have hoped to see that spelled out after some fashion.
If we were to stand this on it's head and assume your meaning of (B), what computer could possibly fall outside this clause? What computer would remain anywhere within the states purview to regulate under Amendment 10 of the Constitution? It would be a very rare and isolated computer indeed, would it not? Even computers like the X-Box and Web-TV's and PocketPC's and virtually any device, owned by anyone, of any age with access to the internet becomes a "protected computer." Even Cell Phones! What are the ramifications of this? Why would we need part (A)? One e-mail transaction or web page access across state lines (or maybe even the capability to do so) and the computer is a protected computer under the jurisdiction of the federal government under (B). Is that right, correct, intended, defensible? The special case requiring explanation would seem to be what computers are not protected, or are exempted from Federal purview and jurisprudence.
While I can read the section the way you do, I know that practice does not always follow a strict interpretation of the written language. In the past I've had difficulty getting both state and federal agencies to follow the code as written as they feel they have discretion to interpret and weigh and balance -- and then there are the courts. I have found that being right about the meaning of a sentence or paragraph has not always resulted in my arguments prevailing. I'm pre-wired (biased) to believe that if something can be misread or misinterpreted, it will be. Being right is not the same thing as being effective.
While I would not try to argue that you are wrong (and I'd like to be protected from spyware, even on my non-M$ computers), I still have a concern based on my experience with legislatures and the uneven treatement and enforcement by administrations and authorities, that this is not as clear cut as it might first seem. I applaud the efforts on their face value, but I'm also prepared to be disappointed by the politicians and their many faces.
Title 18 USC 1030(e)(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer-- (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
In it's current form, this bill protects ONLY "financial institution or the United States Government" due to the use of the term "protected computer."
Just where does this 50 lb brain think these COTS products came from in the first place! If you can buy something that does what you need, fine. This guy is saying that everything has been written or basically, everything has been invented... so why don't we just close down the US Patent Office... we all done. Get real. Of course you shouldn't build custom word processor these days, but I can't begin to believe we're done writing useful, cost effective, software applications. The fact that there are a lot of piss poor software engineers and program/project managers out there that can't engineer or manage as well as they can dream shouldn't be a surprise. That there are government organizations like the FBI that can't either, well that's another shocker too, isn't it... NOT! Custom Software isn't the problem, and COTS isn't always the answer.
(1) The US claims 200 miles as the Economic Exclusion Zone. International Waters off the US Coast begin there. (2) The rules (by the way, there are rules that govern international waters and the High Seas) that govern salvage rights would not apply to a buoy because it is anchored to the sea floor. (3) We're not talking about international waters or something "adrift." (4) The "enterprising young person" that undertakes what you've suggested will have a serious problem dealing with one of these buoys in the first place. They are likely larger than any boat a "young person" could afford. Even if they could deal with the size, anchor, and chain and so on, the authorities would likely releave them of what we call their liberty. (5) Don't forget the USCG and the USN. The Captains know the rules and have the ability to enforce them.
Not NEW buoys... Read the damn article. The systems in question are being installed on existing buoys. And SOSUS is not buoys, is still used, can and does track anything that puts sound in water (subs, ships, whales, etc.). The buoys in question, for the most part, are not sonar-buoys, but may have hydrophones. The USCG is more concerned with location of the existing buoys (useful for their purposes) and if they are capable of hosting the additional equipment. The buoys are floating platforms (some very large) that house weather stations, navigation equipment and so on. The system in the origianl article is more like a beacon IFF (Information Friend or Foe) like you might find on a radar. It doesn't track. It interrogates (asks the system on the ship to report it's information) and then forwards that information.
It would be funny if only there was something funny about seagull crap on buoys at sea. Next thing we'll hear is that they are rusty, have barnacles growing on them and are always wet on the under side. Besides, the electronics are on the inside and only the antenna's are exposed.
You're hinting at the issue here that all the Services have to deal with -- the difference between the business end of war and the pointed end of the stick. The busines side is not interested in real-time, safety, and that soft of stuff. They want cheap and familiar, but mostly familiar. They have a different set of requirements and prioities. The USAF that fly planes and do weapons are feeling the presure to use more commercial standards based solutions, but the presure to pass real world testing based on requirements keeps things somewhat in check. There is huge presure for COTS and cheap to buy solutions from the bean counters, and it remains a struggle to hold ground on the total solution requirements, so if you have an opportunity to point out case studies and cost analysis data that bucks the none thingking trend to buy M$ for everything (or any monoculture or "single point failure"), please do and make it obvious and easy to find. Spending our taxes wisely and Peoples lives depend on it too. I know it might be the same tune we've been singing, but that's what it takes to get through sometimes. Don't miss the opportunity to be the 10,000th time they heard it and say it the last time it takes for them to get it...
Not sure what was more amazing, the story or the reactions I've read. Some of you seem to get the joke, but most of you are clueless. The DoD has had it's own isolated networks (yes, several, and they are actually isolated and independent from the W3) for a long time. The GIG is old news. DoD is refining updating it and will go on refining it and may even call it something different in the future. The new consortia (Net-Centric Operations Industry Consortium - NCOIC) is still trying to figure out it's own charter and mandate. It's all based on big money and it costs lots to join. There's a foundation (Net-Centric Operations Industry Foundation - NCOIF) that predates it and it has within it the Association For Enterprise Integration (AFEI - www.afei.org). This one is trying to be all inclusive (low cost of membership and all sizes of companies welcome. More the open model even if some of the same bigger players are involved in both. There's lots of this sort of stuff going on and it's been going on for a long time. I will conceed that many of the important DoD web sites that used to be visible are now protected and restricted access, but there's still lot of information in the public domain... if you're looking. Something you might be more concerned about is the waste of time and effort as different parts of the DoD try to protect their rice bowls. They are not all on the same page, and it's going to continue to cost more than it should for the functionality that gets deployed. I guess that's not a new story either...;-)
What's this got to do with the original topic? It simply spins the original out of control. If you want to lament the unavailability of a specific OS or SW for a hobby-toy platform, start your own thread (if you can get it past the moderators). Please don't restart old worn out discussions.
Let's look deeper at the issue of the meaning or value of "market share" for instance. This is a topic that gets much air time, but IMO (notice the missing H;-) has very limited value -- much less than seems to be attached when used to make a point the term is ill equiped to support.
Market Share is that simple and obvious answer to the very complex question that is, of course, always wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You want some cheeze to go with that whine?
Doesn't someone read these before they post them?
Must be a slow weekend...
Consider that we're dealing with DHS, the largest organization within the US Gov... and they were just formed out of a bunch of large US Gov organizations that have little to no track record of playing well together. DHS is distracted by it's own internal problems and they have little energy to spend on solving the problems of local first responders. They have leadership with significant attitude as well, not to mention that they think that their authority means they know it all too... They believe they are Large and in Charge...
DHS is headed by "Big-Bang" specialists that, once they get around to it, will attempt to devise a large centralized plan that they will attempt to roll out or roll over on the first responders... some day in the far distant future. Remember the line, Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm hear to help... Well, be afraid, be very afraid.
DHS will follow the same pattern that large Government orgs have been following for years. What they won't do is actually help to facilitate local first responders any time soon. They're just too distracted getting organized to pay too much attention to the little guys.
States and big cities are going to be on their own for some time and even with good direction, coordination, and leadership from DHS, it will still be the local governments that will have to do the heavy lifting. Local governments should realize that it's their business in the first place to protect their local populations. If your local governments are sitting around waiting for the DHS to move, I suggest that you pay close attention to this topic next time you vote for your state and local representatives. They are the ones with direct influence over the first responders that your life may depend on.
It ain't over 'til the Appeals Process has run it's course... No, Wait! Congress (the opposite of Progress, btw) could trump the whole thing with new law.
Did you know that your cell phone conversations are not protected as private confidential conversations under the law? If you tell someone or your lawyer something confidential while either one of you is on a cell, you're not protected.
What's the difference between an overseas call (call into or out of the US) that is monitored from within the borders of the US or outside?
Ease? Convienience? Think about it.
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Oh, and...
Remember, this is the same government that you elected...
or if you didn't vote and don't participate...
Remember, this is the same government that you allowed to be elected through you inaction and nonparticipation and...
Remember, this is the same government that at one time, anyway, was our government, of and by and for the people...
Maybe if we gave a crap and expended half as much energy as we use bitching about our government, participating in OUR government, maybe, just maybe, we'd have one we could be proud to call ours again.
Of course we'd have to grow up and act like adults and take responsibility for ourselves before that happens, so, well, just never mind. Have some more kool-aid, put your feet up, watch some more news coverage delivered by some of the most briliant minds on the planet. Consider that you might just have the governemtn you deserve.
YES, is the right answer. You have the right idea, but I'm not sure you've got the right twist. I'm not sure either if there's enough space or time to capture all the issues here either. The students did the deed, but they are students and are irresponsible and immature. Some of that is because of who they are and where they are in life. Some is a failing on the parts of their role models and upbringing. What does one do with children that act up? The adware folks have a business model that is abusive and promotes illegal behavior. Moreover, the whole concept of appropriating other peoples property for your own gains is trespass and theft and that's what they do when they load their crapware on your computer. This seems to be the most clear cut case for action. The "victims" in this case are guilty of ignorance and stupidity, or do we have the right victims identified? What about the people who's lives were placed at risk? The mere fact that such a critical network (if what I read was truly the case) of computers that control critical systems should never be accessible from the network, and I'm not even going to begin the discussion of someone's life being dependent on the reliable and continuous operation of a windows based computer (read the ULA some time and you'll see). We have enough of a health care crisis without taking those sorts of risks. I for one will be looking the next time I or anyone that I care about goes to a health care provider or a hospital to see if lives are dependant on such a dangerous and ignorant application of hobby-toy technology. ...We are sorry to inform you of the death of your loved one. We got a virus over the network in the xBox we were using for life support and it took us too long to remove it and reboot the system...
Congress really IS the opposite of Progress...
Is it?
I accept your additional references, and a more careful reading of subsection (B) leads me to consider that your position is defensible, and mine may be less so. I was admittedly hasty on my lunch hour, but the construction of (B) still troubles me because it is less precise than (A).
It does not say or indicate 'any computer capable of...', but indicates that it is a computer "which is used in..." and this may still assume an official capacity or official recognition or qualification of the computing asset. A clean bright line as guidance for application of Amendment 10 would be most useful. If 'all inclusiveness' was the intent in the same way that "exclusively for the use of..." is used in (A), then I would have hoped to see that spelled out after some fashion.
If we were to stand this on it's head and assume your meaning of (B), what computer could possibly fall outside this clause? What computer would remain anywhere within the states purview to regulate under Amendment 10 of the Constitution? It would be a very rare and isolated computer indeed, would it not? Even computers like the X-Box and Web-TV's and PocketPC's and virtually any device, owned by anyone, of any age with access to the internet becomes a "protected computer." Even Cell Phones! What are the ramifications of this? Why would we need part (A)? One e-mail transaction or web page access across state lines (or maybe even the capability to do so) and the computer is a protected computer under the jurisdiction of the federal government under (B). Is that right, correct, intended, defensible? The special case requiring explanation would seem to be what computers are not protected, or are exempted from Federal purview and jurisprudence.
While I can read the section the way you do, I know that practice does not always follow a strict interpretation of the written language. In the past I've had difficulty getting both state and federal agencies to follow the code as written as they feel they have discretion to interpret and weigh and balance -- and then there are the courts. I have found that being right about the meaning of a sentence or paragraph has not always resulted in my arguments prevailing. I'm pre-wired (biased) to believe that if something can be misread or misinterpreted, it will be. Being right is not the same thing as being effective.
While I would not try to argue that you are wrong (and I'd like to be protected from spyware, even on my non-M$ computers), I still have a concern based on my experience with legislatures and the uneven treatement and enforcement by administrations and authorities, that this is not as clear cut as it might first seem. I applaud the efforts on their face value, but I'm also prepared to be disappointed by the politicians and their many faces.
deemaunik, your comment is RIGHT ON THE MARK!
>> Hello Slashdot
Title 18 USC 1030(e)(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
In it's current form, this bill protects ONLY "financial institution or the United States Government" due to the use of the term "protected computer."
Just where does this 50 lb brain think these COTS products came from in the first place! If you can buy something that does what you need, fine. This guy is saying that everything has been written or basically, everything has been invented... so why don't we just close down the US Patent Office... we all done. Get real. Of course you shouldn't build custom word processor these days, but I can't begin to believe we're done writing useful, cost effective, software applications. The fact that there are a lot of piss poor software engineers and program/project managers out there that can't engineer or manage as well as they can dream shouldn't be a surprise. That there are government organizations like the FBI that can't either, well that's another shocker too, isn't it... NOT! Custom Software isn't the problem, and COTS isn't always the answer.
(1) The US claims 200 miles as the Economic Exclusion Zone. International Waters off the US Coast begin there. (2) The rules (by the way, there are rules that govern international waters and the High Seas) that govern salvage rights would not apply to a buoy because it is anchored to the sea floor. (3) We're not talking about international waters or something "adrift." (4) The "enterprising young person" that undertakes what you've suggested will have a serious problem dealing with one of these buoys in the first place. They are likely larger than any boat a "young person" could afford. Even if they could deal with the size, anchor, and chain and so on, the authorities would likely releave them of what we call their liberty. (5) Don't forget the USCG and the USN. The Captains know the rules and have the ability to enforce them.
Not NEW buoys... Read the damn article. The systems in question are being installed on existing buoys. And SOSUS is not buoys, is still used, can and does track anything that puts sound in water (subs, ships, whales, etc.). The buoys in question, for the most part, are not sonar-buoys, but may have hydrophones. The USCG is more concerned with location of the existing buoys (useful for their purposes) and if they are capable of hosting the additional equipment. The buoys are floating platforms (some very large) that house weather stations, navigation equipment and so on. The system in the origianl article is more like a beacon IFF (Information Friend or Foe) like you might find on a radar. It doesn't track. It interrogates (asks the system on the ship to report it's information) and then forwards that information.
It would be funny if only there was something funny about seagull crap on buoys at sea. Next thing we'll hear is that they are rusty, have barnacles growing on them and are always wet on the under side. Besides, the electronics are on the inside and only the antenna's are exposed.
You're hinting at the issue here that all the Services have to deal with -- the difference between the business end of war and the pointed end of the stick. The busines side is not interested in real-time, safety, and that soft of stuff. They want cheap and familiar, but mostly familiar. They have a different set of requirements and prioities. The USAF that fly planes and do weapons are feeling the presure to use more commercial standards based solutions, but the presure to pass real world testing based on requirements keeps things somewhat in check. There is huge presure for COTS and cheap to buy solutions from the bean counters, and it remains a struggle to hold ground on the total solution requirements, so if you have an opportunity to point out case studies and cost analysis data that bucks the none thingking trend to buy M$ for everything (or any monoculture or "single point failure"), please do and make it obvious and easy to find. Spending our taxes wisely and Peoples lives depend on it too. I know it might be the same tune we've been singing, but that's what it takes to get through sometimes. Don't miss the opportunity to be the 10,000th time they heard it and say it the last time it takes for them to get it...
Not sure what was more amazing, the story or the reactions I've read. Some of you seem to get the joke, but most of you are clueless. The DoD has had it's own isolated networks (yes, several, and they are actually isolated and independent from the W3) for a long time. The GIG is old news. DoD is refining updating it and will go on refining it and may even call it something different in the future. The new consortia (Net-Centric Operations Industry Consortium - NCOIC) is still trying to figure out it's own charter and mandate. It's all based on big money and it costs lots to join. There's a foundation (Net-Centric Operations Industry Foundation - NCOIF) that predates it and it has within it the Association For Enterprise Integration (AFEI - www.afei.org). This one is trying to be all inclusive (low cost of membership and all sizes of companies welcome. More the open model even if some of the same bigger players are involved in both. There's lots of this sort of stuff going on and it's been going on for a long time. I will conceed that many of the important DoD web sites that used to be visible are now protected and restricted access, but there's still lot of information in the public domain... if you're looking. Something you might be more concerned about is the waste of time and effort as different parts of the DoD try to protect their rice bowls. They are not all on the same page, and it's going to continue to cost more than it should for the functionality that gets deployed. I guess that's not a new story either... ;-)
What's this got to do with the original topic? It simply spins the original out of control. If you want to lament the unavailability of a specific OS or SW for a hobby-toy platform, start your own thread (if you can get it past the moderators). Please don't restart old worn out discussions. Let's look deeper at the issue of the meaning or value of "market share" for instance. This is a topic that gets much air time, but IMO (notice the missing H ;-) has very limited value -- much less than seems to be attached when used to make a point the term is ill equiped to support.
Market Share is that simple and obvious answer to the very complex question that is, of course, always wrong.