I don't think the US constitution says anything about the right of non-citizens. I could be wrong, of course.
As others have pointed out, there are those who believe that the U.S. was founded on the ideas of equality and universal human rights. Some view the Constitution as a document which defines and limits the U.S. Government, not the rights of the people.
In any case, it does not seem relavant. As pointed out, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the Chicago. The new terror legislation also says nothing which would limit use to non-citizens.
Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.
The problem is that this is NOT a known fact. This is a claim often repeated by the administration, but the facts of the program are mostly classified and have never been made public. The fact that the very existance of this program contradicts previous statements by the President, makes me less willing to take his current statements as fact.
It would seem that if this particular claim was true, there would be no need to ignore FISA. Since FISA is being circumvented, it seems unlikely that the claims of the Administration are any more true now than they were when they were claiming that the program didn't exist in the first place. The Executive branch may well have a duty to deny/misrepresent the extent of the program, but it is ultimately up the courts to decide if the program violates the law.
Why is that? Afraid to mention that because it weakens your argument?
Well, for all the same reasons you didn't point out the the Executive is likely tapping all communications (of everyone within reach) and all electronic records and letting the NSA attempt to filter something useful out of it. Because repeating unsubstantiated claims which weaken your position is not a wise debating tactic.
You talk to the other mini-ISPs across the country, and form the Free Net Foundation. You raise some money (remember, you've already got 1000s of customers in these mini-ISPs), set up a new backbone (I've heard that Google owns some fiber..), and off you go.
The difficulty there is that you will not be able to compete. Not only has the infrastructure of the big carriers already been subsidized by the government, but they have other protected markets to milk should they need to undercut your Internet pricing. Mini-ISPs still largely depend on local carriers
Telecom and cable monopoly lies in one, and only one place: Last mile access. The market for FWA and fiber is open, flexible and not bogged down by monopolies.
Last I read, 70% of the U.S. backbone is now owned by AT&T and Verizon. It would be very expensive and time consuming attempting to build a network which could route around that efficiently. The market seems to be consolidating rather than opening up. And, the industry has been consolidating from the last mile out. The local carriers (Verizon and SBC) ended up owning the long haul providers (AT&T and MCI), because they were able to leverage their physical monopolies to pay for moving into other markets.
Your idea makes me feel good. I just don't think economics favors it.
The phone companies want "net neutrality" so they can run video in, without having to do this themselves.
I believe you have this only half right. The phone companies do not want "net neutrality". They want to run video in, but the cable companies also want to offer VoIP services. So, both cable and telecom industries are working in favor of the current telecom bill, and working together to block net neutrality provisions, which the current telecom bill does not contain. I think both industries (built largely around monopolies) are will to accept that technology will force them to compete with eachother; but they would both like to shutdown the free market in Internet services. Neither cable companies nor telecom companies want to see Microsoft or Google offering free phone service or free video on demand.
I haven't seen the AT&T ads you are referring to. But I think either you are mis-interpreting them, or AT&T is mis-representing their position. At least as it involves the current telecom bill, AT&T has certainly not been on the side of net neutrality.
Educational regulations vary by state. Many universities offer some sort of general education degree intended for grade school teachers, such as the USC B.S. degree in General Studies. Beyond that, there are programs within other colleges which are education specific, such as the programs in Agricultural Ed., Art Ed., Exercise Science Ed. at OSU. And even beyond that, within other colleges there tend to be multiple degree offererings, such as a B.A. or a B.S. in Mathematics or Physics.
So, there certainly are education degrees beyond Spec. Ed. and Masters of Education. There are so many degree programs out there that saying anyone needs to earn the "same degree" for anything makes little sense. Many EE programs put you within a class or two of getting B.A. in Math AND Physics. All of them could get you into a variety of careers or grad programs, but they are not "the same degree".
This entire place is like one great, big idiot convention.
5 minutes before a child is born, it's a human being but it's still legal to abort it. Even, if everything except the child's head has emerged from the mother, it's legal to abort it.
Where? In my state, thrid trimester abortions are illegal except in cases which threaten the life or health of the mother.
No one is getting worked up over the deaths of zygotes. Those of us who oppose abortion on demand want to see the deaths of viable human beings come to an end.
If that were the case, the pro-life movement would have nothing to do in my state. But oddly enough, they are working on a total abortion ban and tossing around the idea of going after birth control. What is the opposition to "the morning after pill" based on if not the death of zygotes? How about embryonic stem cell research? Zygotes again!
Your position is completely supported by current U.S. law. Given that, you probably identify yourself as "pro-choice", and choose not to ally yourself with those radicals out to protect the rights of zygotes?
1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.
Maybe. The "it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading" provides a strong incentive for ISPs to attempt to block P2P in general.
As I said, it's only for music, so basically no.
You said, but where do the articles say that? The tax is going on all sorts of blank media including dvd-r's and even printers. The article states the money is going to go to "copyright holders"; I don't see where it specifies that this only applies to music.
So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.
That is very optimistic. Who calculates sales? If I sell my CD's from the back of my car, do they count? Musicians often complain of getting shafted on royalties by their own record companies; it only gets worse when you insert a government bureaucracy and a industry trade organization.
While I don't know if "information wants to be free", there are a couple of other truisms which are pointed to by the by the fact that "a massive 71% is P2P traffic". First, computer networks copy information. And second, the Internet was and is built on porn and copyright infringement. Personally, I think laws which make all ISPs criminals is a bad idea. Personally, I don't think personal, physical copying is a right which should not be taxed. Sharing is a different matter.
True capitalists are all for the right to give things away. That's among the biggest of reasons they oppose the death tax.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are not true capitalists? They don't oppose the estate tax. It is not difficult to find capitalists who support the idea of an estate tax.
The main reason it is an issue seems to be 18 very rich families have purchased enough influence to make it an issue.
Libertarians oppose the estate tax because they oppose taxation in general. Taxation and government are not necessarily anti-capitalist, though Libertarians may disagree.
You can't give things away that the government takes away first.
That is not always true. Generally, the government cannot take what you give away first. Mr. Buffett just greatly reduced the potential tax liability on his estate by giving away 85% of it. Every year, you can decrease your tax liability by giving away some money. In fact, you can give away so much money, that the government will give you back money that they have already taken from you. If the government takes your assets based on some criminal or civil action, your statement holds true; but I don't believe it is true in most cases in the context of federal taxation.
The incentive to give things away created by the estate tax is one of the arguments for keeping it. Sales taxes and usage fees generally create no such incentive.
As a matter of fact, because a communist society doesn't recognize the concept of private property, how can you give something away if you don't have the right to own it in the first place?
I'm certainly not an expert, but I believe the theory goes something like this. You give away the value of your labor in return for what you need. There is no need for charity, because you will not be denied something you need because someone else is claiming it as property. Of course, things work differently in practice; but, that is true of most political and economic theories.
Ah... downmodded.
You always hope against experience that the slashdot mods aren't going to mod based on their politics, but it always happens.
LOL. What exactly, besides your own ego, leads you to the conclusion that negative mods are any more political than positive mods? I see an awful lot of posts get pushed up to +5 for simply parroting a popular position.
What's with the "overrated" mods anyway? I don't think I've ever given out a negative mod myself. The point is to find good points to mod up, not to piss on people's arguments if you feel offended. What good can come of downmodding?
While I and the moderator guidelines generally agree with you, I've used "overrated" mods before. I mean, how "insightful" can a one liner Ben Franklin quote really be when not tied into the topic at hand with an actual insight? Negative moderation ultimately serves the same good as positive moderation, attempting to draw the needles from the haystack. Sometimes that means pushing some of the hay back into the stack. For me, the "overrated" and "underrated" mods say more about the other mods than the post itself.
While I don't see the "overrated" mod which offended you, perhaps the moderator simply felt that replying to your own posts, making the same points, at some point ceases to be insightful or interesting. "Redundant" probably would have worked as well. OT could also have been applied because we have drifted fairly far from TFA.
I found out that I had left out some additional interesting info I'm sure some doe-eyed liberal can take horrible offense at.
That's an interesting perspective. TFA is about some German filing a patent on a new type of firearm with secure ammunition. It seems to be the "doe-eyed" conservatives who are all worked up that this somehow threatens their gun rights.
I guess the lesson should be to beware of statistics.
While the attribution of "lies, damn lies, and statistics" may be murky, the insight is clear.
But in the gun-rights debate, it seems that the "save the children" crowd are the ones most prone to either make up random statistics or misuse actual ones.
I find statistics are abused more often than not in public discourse. Afterall, you need something to back-up your lies and damn lies.
To get back to TFA, the guy designed a new type of firearm and ammunition. It does not sound like this technology can be easily retro-fitted onto existing firearms or ammunition. From a "oh no, they're takin' away my guns!" perspective, this technology does not seem very threatening. It does not seem likely that there is any lobby sufficiently strong to mandate the use of a German firearm technology on a broad scale in the United States. And even if there were, it does not alter all of the existing firearms or the market for more standard types of ammunition. I can see a number of applications for this type of technology, but gun control in the U.S. does not seem like one of them.
The problem here is we are not really talking ISPs, we are talking major network providers. You might be able to find another ISP, but they are just hooked into the same upstream provider. Neither end point need be a direct customer of the network provider for them to impose a QOS tax, the traffic simply needs to cross their network at some point. The telcos know exactly where they sit in the customer food chain, between the customer and anything on the Internet.
For "the market" to handle this, there would need to be a functioning market.
Fear of these types of technology is not really based in their lack of openness, but in their applications. If the government wants to implant some RF tracking device in my head, the fact they will let me know how to use the signal to activate my garage door doesn't really remove my fear. Open standards can be used to implement all sorts of things which may or may not be good.
I have two main concerns with advanced authentication systems. First, they create a false sense of certainty, eroding the presumption of innocence. Second, I'm concerned about the amount of data collected and retained, and how the information is used.
First off, there is an assumption here that the government is entitled to control public resources by default, and regulate people who use them by implication. That's a huge assumption and it's not true.
You only need to make that assumption if you ignore the existing reality. The U.S. telecom market was built and is currently shaped by heavy government regulation. The government entitlement to do so is sort of moot at this point. A telecom "free-market" is not one of the options on the table.
Second off, there is the assumption here that telcos are doing some evil deed that needs to be stopped. That is also a huge assumption.
This is incorrect. The telecoms need not do anything particularly "evil"; they just need to behave as any business would. Assuming that they will do what they can to maximize profit is very reasonable in a capitalist society.
They financed the lines, not Google. If Google thinks they have a better plan, then lay some phone lines and do it. God only knows Google has the money.
This ignores the part public money and government power has had in building the telecom networks. Given corporate taxation, Google Inc. probably did not contribute much to building these networks, but the general population sure has. Google's money will only get them so far, at many points they will be running into government regulation which blocks them from entering the market.
Third off, there is the assumption that market forces on their own are "untrustworthy" to stop such scheems. . . . Same here. I would love nothing more than to see the telcos try this and have their ass kicked in the marketplace to only be come eternally irrelavent.
When we are talking about cartels and monopolies, market forces are already hugely distorted. SBC and Verizon did not end up buying AT&T and MCI because they kicked their ass in the market. They ended up eating their lunch because they succeeded in using regulation enter the long distance market, while leveraging their physical monopolies to restrict competition in the local service and DSL markets. The telcos know that you'd be hard pressed to get anywhere on the Internet without crossing their networks as some point. At least in my area, market forces have been insufficient to get me competitive choice in DSL, or even options competitive with those available in more "socialist" economies.
Fourth off, there is no understanding here of how monopolies work, only a herd mentality. The rail road regulations didn't stop the abuses of the railroad barrons, they only just raised the regulatory costs of getting into the rail business which consolidated their power. It is not a cooncidence that the passanger rail business in the USA is stagnent to this day.
There certainly are lots of arm-chair economists. Some seem to follow particular economic ideologies almost like a religion. What/. may lack in learned economic opinion, it may make up for in technical understanding of the telcom and Internet marketplaces.
In sum, net neutrality is anything but "neutral" and it just plain sucks.
Well, that depends on who you are. Net neutrality attempts to make/keep the Internet neutral. It sucks for the major carriers, but it is good for companies which would like to offer Internet services. A tiered Internet would help telecoms, but could more or less shut down VoIP start-ups and any new service the telecoms don't really like.
Net neutrality is really about defining what the Internet is, more than it is telling the telecoms what to do. The current "best-effort" Internet creates a level playing field for all sorts of companies in all types of services. The telecoms are threatened by this because they cannot control when some yahoo designs a new service which undercuts one of their monopoly revenue streams. A tiered Internet would allow them to artificially raise barriers to entry to markets on the Internet. The telecom and cable markets are not free as it is. Net neutrality prevents these government protected companies from exerting control over the much more free market of the Internet.
FWIW, because they would be removing impediments to how the telcos do business, this sounds to me like deregulation...I have a hard time opposing that in most cases. It may suck for the consumer in the short term, but it will end up creating competition in the market.
How exactly will it create comptition when telcos have legislated monopolies?
Net Neutrality is really about preventing the telcos from using their existing monopolies to restrict competition and innovation on the Internet. The telcos would like to shut down things like VoIP, and prevent new services from arrising which undercut their existing services or services they would like to offer. There is nothing currently preventing the telcos from selling as much bandwidth, from anywhere to anywhere, to anyone they like. There is nothing preventing them from carving up their pipes however they like.
Net Neutrality serves to keep the Internet a more or less open market. It prevents the access cartels from using their monopolies to control the Internet through extortion. Compare the rate of innovation in the U.S. cellular market compared to the Internet market. From a free market perspective, I see no reason why it is better to allow the telcos to make themselves the gatekeepers of the Internet.
If you want to de-regulate telecom in the U.S., you need to think a lot bigger than simply opposing new regulations. Allowing existing government backed cartels to raise artificial barriers to entry to markets on the Internet does not seem like a pro free market position.
Those rights you think you have are an illusion I'm afraid.
They became nonviable the day some guy called Muhammad said "Now go kill all the infedels".
So basically your argument is that the entire concept of the freedom and rights as embodied by the U.S. Constitution was nonviable a full 1200 years before it was written? For a nonviable concept, it sure seems to have worked pretty well so far.
The world has never been at a shortage of those who would take away your rights. Documents like the U.S. Constitution were not written in ignorance of that fact, but in response to it.
You see, there are entire nations that are teaching their subjects right from childhood that the west is evil and needs to be cleansed in the name of Allah.
Interestingly, the worst offenders in this seem to be our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Go ask at your local mosque how long they think it will be until your wife/partner will be wearing a burqa.
I'm fairly certain I will be required to wear (or be implanted with) and RFID tag long before any radical muslim is in position to make U.S. policy or law.
Iran, for example, is now run by a man who claims his role is to quicken the arrival of the muslim messiah, an event which according to the Quaran can only come to pass by means of greatly increased chaos in the world.
The President of Iran does not run Iran. Before you give up your freedom, you might want to actually use it to learn about and understand the nature of "the enemy". There are those in the U.S. who wish to impose Christian Dominion over the U.S. and the world in order to make way for the return of the Christian messiah. In my opinion, these people stand a much better chance of subverting the U.S. Constitution than a bunch of people on the other side of the world.
Yes people use terrorism to push their own agendas. Yes America is rife with corruption and far from perfect. Yes freedom is important and people must be wary of attempts to subjigate it. But to pretend that people would be better off without any terrorism safeguards is utterly irresponsible beyond stupidity.
When the "terrorism safeguards" pose a greater theat to the U.S. Constitution than the terrorism they were meant to address, I think the safeguards are irresponsible, and those who support them beyond stupid. If you support the U.S. Constitution, you must accept that it would allow for a large armed force of Musmims to exist in the U.S., and that would be O.K. as long as they supported the U.S. Constitution. Giving up freedom and rights so that they cannot be taken away seems more like surrender than safeguarding.
By taxpayers, they could also mean businesses. I'm not sure how this tax was applied, but I would imagine that any number of large corporations would like to get rid of this tax.
While I agree that "inappropriate" could be debated, I don't think this is as illegal as you think. You do not have a right to extracirricular activities and you are not forced to participate. So, signing this agreement is voluntary. I believe this is how they got drug testing into some school districts. State law may limit the type of "disciplinary action" could take, but I believe many districts already make students sign agreements which cover activities outside of school in order to participate in extracirricular activities, the Internet is just a new angle.
The difference with attempting it through the DMV is the number of voters you impact. Most voters couldn't give a damn about school kids, or are coming from the "protect the children" mind set. As we have learned from the War on Terror, many people seem to think that protection is achieved by giving up your rights.
I think it is B.S., but when growing and consuming a plant entirely on your own private property can be regulated as interstate commerce; I don't have much faith in the courts limiting the reach of government.
Yes, but this applies to non private resturants. Actually even private clubs can get into trouble for descrimination.
Can you cite some examples of state funded restaurants in Europe which exclude people based on class? I imagine there could be some given the legacy of royalty and such, but is this really the result of anything Liberal or Left-Wing, or of conservatives supporting the tradition of monarchy? The original post was suggesting that these restaurants in Europe are evidence of Liberal elitism. Perhaps if someone provided examples it would be more clear.
As for private clubs running afoul of anti-descrimination laws, does that not also happen in Europe? Are the clubs or the laws the results of liberals? Which are more elitist?
I look forward to you telling me that we in the US are just as bad.
I was aware of the story you present. I agree it is terrible.
Perhaps you will remember the Branch Davidians? Now, in my experience, an armed standoff with the U.S. government tends to end one of two ways, surrender or death. In light of that, the Branch Davidians first used their children as human shields in hopes of forcing a third possible outcome, and in the end allowed their children to be burned alive in support of their religeous and political beliefs. And really, the idea of sacrificing your children in support of your faith is something which is common to Christianity and Islam going back to Abraham. I'm sure both the Davidians and "The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" felt they were following the will of God. And I'm certain I could come up with Muslims and Christians who would say that they were not.
You can find American Christian sects which advocate all sorts of crazy things. Go do some research on dominion theology. Go do some research on Aryan Nations. You will find that there are Christian groups which sound very similar to radical Islamic groups.
My point was not really that "we" are as bad as "them". I was mainly attempting to show that the original poster's assertions did not support his conclusions. It is generally difficult to make broad generalizations about groups as large as Europeans or Muslims which do not end up being true for humanity as a whole.
The original poster said: "In the Middle East, the imans or Islamic Religious rulers dictate how you live your life even to the type of clothes you wear such as jeans not being acceptable."
Israel is in the Middle East. There are Jewish sects where the type of clothes you wear are dictated by religious leaders. In the U.S., there are Christian sects which dictate the type of clothes their followers can wear. Does this mean that Israel, the Hasidim, and the Amish hate America for the freedom afforded the common man? Does this sound like valid reasoning to you?
In Europe, there are still some old social rules that you cannot patronize certain restaurants if a member of the lower class even if you can afford to go there.
Doesn't the U.S. also have private clubs which can more or less deny you access for whatever reason they like?
In the Middle East, the imans or Islamic Religious rulers dictate how you live your life even to the type of clothes you wear such as jeans not being acceptable.
The U.S. has no shortage of conservative church leaders who would be glad to tell you what type of clothes to wear, what activities you may engage in, who to associate with, and who to vote for. We even have some factions which would like to enforce their religious rules on all citizens.
In this country, it is the liberals that have disdain towards common people.
There is no shortage of conservatives who do all of the things you mention. Does that mean that conservatives have disdain toward the common people too? Elitism crosses political, religious, and economic lines. Egos are a part of human nature, and few/none are immune. Elites in the U.S. push policies from all sides. They do not show disdain towards the common people because they are "liberal" or "conservative", but because they view themselves as above the common people. Some of them simply have no understanding of what life as a common person is like. What you may perceive as "disdain" may simply be them looking out for their own interests.
Personally, I think one of the many unfortunate things about the current U.S. political scene is the demonization and redefinition of the word "liberal". In the U.S., we should all be liberals of one type or another. The set of beliefs we supposedly agree on (like the Constitution) are liberal. Conservatives should be opposed to radicals. All of us liberals should be opposed to authoritarians. If I were cynical, I might believe that the demonization of liberalism was done intentionally to widen the door for authoritarianism, which seems to cross political and economic boundaries as well.
If either the "liberals" or the "conservatives" not elitist, why are they discussing getting rid of the "death tax" (which only hits the elite) and not the self-employment tax?
And they asked for a court's permission without asking for a court's permission?
TFA is talking about different things. NSLs from the FBI do not go before the FISC. The FISC issued 2072 special warrents in addition to the 9254 NSLs from the FBI.
Between you and the FISA court set up to determine the legality of said wiretaps I'll have to side with the judges of FISA and according to them, Bush was fully within the recognized powers of the Presidency to authorize the NSA taps.
One of the FISC Judges reportedly resigned in protest. I don't think this is really as cut and dried an issue was you suggest. The FISC is also not really charged with finding this program legal or not.
Do you content that the Diebold voting machines are programmed in a way that makes them favor Republicans over Democrats?
That is really beside the point. The fact that they make wholesale tampering so much easier and so less traceable. When Diebold comes in and "upgrades" the machines with un-certified code before an election, they could really hand the election to whomever they wanted. Is this a good situation as long as they hand the election to the highest bidder or the candidate least likely to regulate voting machines?
Actually, a government law that obligates a company to change how they do business is anti-free market. All the DMCA does is give formal protection to DRM software that precedent normally gave them anyway.
The DMCA very much obligates companies to change how they do business. The DMCA was needed because these controls were not at all supported by precedent. If I wanted to evaluate wall safes, I could buy a bunch and try to break into them. While the DMCA can't currently prevent me from trying, it can certainly prevent me from sharing my findings.
By your definition, all IP, and really all law in general, is anti-free market.
At any rate, you've been quite thoroughly convinced that copy protected music will lead a multitude of other things. Is there anything other than speculation to back any of those up, or is it just hyper-paranoia?
You obviously haven't been paying close attention. DRM is already extending much further than music. The DMCA has already prompted law suites in areas such as printer catrideges and garage door openers. Trusted computing has a lot of potential change how computers can be used.
Have you gone to the trouble of actually reading the fine print?
Not recently, but if it is anything like most one-sided contracts, it probably includes clauses which release the vendor from any liablity and allows them to change the agreement without notice.
Are you saying that big corporations with a whole lot to lose in a class action suit are lieing when they say they are not connecting the CC info on the purchase with the club card?
In general, yes I do believe big corporations would lie about that. But in this case, you don't even have a signed agreement to dispute. Their agreement was with Mr. I. P. Freely, not you. Since you are using his club card, are you guilty of fraud? Identity theft? Good luck with your law suit from the class of liers. What sort of damage or injury did you suffer from them figuring out your lie?
On one occassion, before my wife and I were married, a store objected to allowing her to use my club card with her credit card. Whether this was simply an over-zealous employee or something built into the data system I don't know. But in my experience, people who create and use corporate data systems rarely see, and even more rarely read, the laws and/or contracts which govern the data they are working with.
Just more from the tinfoil hat people.
I usually find them to be more insightful than the average rose colored glasses people.
Having worked in an organization of similar size and disarray, I can sympathize with your position. Having spent most of the time on both sides of the computer/network security fence, I have both shared your opinion and had to answer it, often simultaneously.
There is no way in the world that I would allow an end-user rights to do this, but, it I have to get to HP for print drivers, there is no need for further approval.
From a network security perspective, you ARE the end-user. I agree that your current procedure sounds stupid, but if I was building a network intended to protect national security information, there is no way I'd let admins download crap off the Internet and install it on the network. I don't care how secure you think your connection with HP is; but that's just me. Your current regulation seems to be more about creating a paper trail than directly improving security, perhaps they are just documenting going around a regulation because the support infrastructure required by the regulation does not exist at this point. An approved list does not really address the threat, unless it is enforced somewhere in the network. But in an organization the size of DHS, someone should be centrally certifying copies of software as common as HP printer drivers.
I'm not sure where you think that I have an attitude issue with this procedure, my issue is with those who consitently blast off saying that nothing is secure and I'm faced with procedures that make it hard to get to the basic tools that I need to do my job in a timely manner.
Keeping data secure is a very important job, that's a given.
Perhaps it is just perspective, but your issue illustrates my point. If security problems do exist, people blasting off about it is good, no matter how annoying. I don't like the sound of my alarm clock, but I'm glad it goes off. Where your perspective comes into play is that you seem to view security and security procedures as separate from your job. I contend that they are not. They may make your job harder or less fun, but they as much "your job" as whatever your real job is.
That's why I say that we need more facts. There are networks set up for the express purpose of being able to access the web as any home computer would. There are people who have to have this type of set-up to work. If the committee sees this, it's a risk, but, how else should they go about doing what they have to do? They didn't identify what aspect of the network, or even which network was the one that was found to be "failing". The segment that I work with was recently assessed and the only issue that I had was an easy fix, minor oversight that in no way comprimised any data....that's not in the news.
At least according to TFA, the grades are the result of internal audits. So, I suspect most of "the facts" aren't going to be openly published. Security through obscurity may not be good, but it is better than publishing a detailed list of poor security practices throughout the government. You got the facts you needed from your audit. If other groups did not, then it is a failure of the group doing the auditing. Telling someone that they failed, but not why they failed is hardly helpful.
If you want to create a network which simulates "any home computer", consumer ISP links are not that expensive. If your job requires one, you should certainly be allowed to have one; but I don't see any good reason why it should be connected to the secure network. There should be procedures governing how you may communicate between the two in a secure manner.
What bristled me enough to respond initially was the notion that security procedures were too strict and that they were preventing you from doing your job. If you view security procedures as part of your job, rather than opposing your job; I think you are more likely to be secure, and more likely to help the organization be secure. From what you described, it does not sound like the s
You obviously don't understand what this OMB report is all about... It's a report card on FISMA compliance, not on the level of Security inherent to the environment at any of those Agencies.
This was an auditing exercise... Not a Systems Penetration test.
Oh, I understand. I think my 10+ years in Internet/network security has just given me a different perspective with respect to the role of auditing and security procedure compliance and how they relate to the "level of security inherent to the environment." There is a lot more to security than penetration testing.
The Agencies you cite from the article (NSF, GSA, EPA, and Dept. of Labor) have only demonstrated their ability to contend with the paper tiger of FISMA compliance, which is, frankly, what I'd expect from a bunch of pencil pushers and petty buearocrats of the type you'd find at any of those agencies.
That's funny. . . The main point there was to illustrate that FISMA compliance is possible without disconnecting from the rest of the world. Calling them names really doesn't change that. I suggest that they have been more successful because they are smaller. And perhaps because their intended missions are not really in line with the current administration; therefore, they have plenty of time to work on FISMA compliance. In any case, perhaps the pencil pushers and petty bureaucrats at Agriculture, Defense, Energy, State, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs could see if they could learn something from "those" agencies which did manage to improve their level of FISMA compliance.
I'm not defending DHS. They should be doing a better job, but as a previous poster accurately pointed out, this is not a 3-year old Department built from scratch. This is a conglomeration of 22 federal agencies that each had historical ties to other Departments until 3 years ago, and they are now in the midst of the largest "Corporate Merger" in history. If you don't think it takes some time to get your arms around something like that, I'd like to see you give it a try.
Luckily I happen to work for an organization which is larger than DHS in both budget and manpower. In the last 10 years we have been through more mergers and reorganizations than I care to remember. So, not only have I tried it, I've been through it several times at this point. I've seen mergers which were organized well, and I have seen ones which were not organized well. Perhaps I am not making a big enough allowance for the intractability of government vs. corporate bureaucracy, but in my experience if you do not have at least some sort of statement as to "we will do this" after three years, there are serious problems with upper management. In my personal experiences, this was because upper management was focused on enriching themselves while staying out of jail, not building and running an effective organization. I suspect that things at DHS are not that much different.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the US constitution says anything about the right of non-citizens. I could be wrong, of course.
As others have pointed out, there are those who believe that the U.S. was founded on the ideas of equality and universal human rights. Some view the Constitution as a document which defines and limits the U.S. Government, not the rights of the people.
In any case, it does not seem relavant. As pointed out, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the Chicago. The new terror legislation also says nothing which would limit use to non-citizens.
Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.
The problem is that this is NOT a known fact. This is a claim often repeated by the administration, but the facts of the program are mostly classified and have never been made public. The fact that the very existance of this program contradicts previous statements by the President, makes me less willing to take his current statements as fact.
It would seem that if this particular claim was true, there would be no need to ignore FISA. Since FISA is being circumvented, it seems unlikely that the claims of the Administration are any more true now than they were when they were claiming that the program didn't exist in the first place. The Executive branch may well have a duty to deny/misrepresent the extent of the program, but it is ultimately up the courts to decide if the program violates the law.
Why is that? Afraid to mention that because it weakens your argument?
Well, for all the same reasons you didn't point out the the Executive is likely tapping all communications (of everyone within reach) and all electronic records and letting the NSA attempt to filter something useful out of it. Because repeating unsubstantiated claims which weaken your position is not a wise debating tactic.
You talk to the other mini-ISPs across the country, and form the Free Net Foundation. You raise some money (remember, you've already got 1000s of customers in these mini-ISPs), set up a new backbone (I've heard that Google owns some fiber..), and off you go.
The difficulty there is that you will not be able to compete. Not only has the infrastructure of the big carriers already been subsidized by the government, but they have other protected markets to milk should they need to undercut your Internet pricing. Mini-ISPs still largely depend on local carriers Telecom and cable monopoly lies in one, and only one place: Last mile access. The market for FWA and fiber is open, flexible and not bogged down by monopolies.
Last I read, 70% of the U.S. backbone is now owned by AT&T and Verizon. It would be very expensive and time consuming attempting to build a network which could route around that efficiently. The market seems to be consolidating rather than opening up. And, the industry has been consolidating from the last mile out. The local carriers (Verizon and SBC) ended up owning the long haul providers (AT&T and MCI), because they were able to leverage their physical monopolies to pay for moving into other markets.
Your idea makes me feel good. I just don't think economics favors it.
The phone companies want "net neutrality" so they can run video in, without having to do this themselves.
I believe you have this only half right. The phone companies do not want "net neutrality". They want to run video in, but the cable companies also want to offer VoIP services. So, both cable and telecom industries are working in favor of the current telecom bill, and working together to block net neutrality provisions, which the current telecom bill does not contain. I think both industries (built largely around monopolies) are will to accept that technology will force them to compete with eachother; but they would both like to shutdown the free market in Internet services. Neither cable companies nor telecom companies want to see Microsoft or Google offering free phone service or free video on demand.
I haven't seen the AT&T ads you are referring to. But I think either you are mis-interpreting them, or AT&T is mis-representing their position. At least as it involves the current telecom bill, AT&T has certainly not been on the side of net neutrality.
Oh, but it is you who is the flamebaiting moron.
Educational regulations vary by state. Many universities offer some sort of general education degree intended for grade school teachers, such as the USC B.S. degree in General Studies. Beyond that, there are programs within other colleges which are education specific, such as the programs in Agricultural Ed., Art Ed., Exercise Science Ed. at OSU. And even beyond that, within other colleges there tend to be multiple degree offererings, such as a B.A. or a B.S. in Mathematics or Physics.
So, there certainly are education degrees beyond Spec. Ed. and Masters of Education. There are so many degree programs out there that saying anyone needs to earn the "same degree" for anything makes little sense. Many EE programs put you within a class or two of getting B.A. in Math AND Physics. All of them could get you into a variety of careers or grad programs, but they are not "the same degree".
This entire place is like one great, big idiot convention.
Then you should fit right in.
5 minutes before a child is born, it's a human being but it's still legal to abort it. Even, if everything except the child's head has emerged from the mother, it's legal to abort it.
Where? In my state, thrid trimester abortions are illegal except in cases which threaten the life or health of the mother.
No one is getting worked up over the deaths of zygotes. Those of us who oppose abortion on demand want to see the deaths of viable human beings come to an end.
If that were the case, the pro-life movement would have nothing to do in my state. But oddly enough, they are working on a total abortion ban and tossing around the idea of going after birth control. What is the opposition to "the morning after pill" based on if not the death of zygotes? How about embryonic stem cell research? Zygotes again!
Your position is completely supported by current U.S. law. Given that, you probably identify yourself as "pro-choice", and choose not to ally yourself with those radicals out to protect the rights of zygotes?
1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.
Maybe. The "it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading" provides a strong incentive for ISPs to attempt to block P2P in general.
As I said, it's only for music, so basically no.
You said, but where do the articles say that? The tax is going on all sorts of blank media including dvd-r's and even printers. The article states the money is going to go to "copyright holders"; I don't see where it specifies that this only applies to music.
So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.
That is very optimistic. Who calculates sales? If I sell my CD's from the back of my car, do they count? Musicians often complain of getting shafted on royalties by their own record companies; it only gets worse when you insert a government bureaucracy and a industry trade organization.
While I don't know if "information wants to be free", there are a couple of other truisms which are pointed to by the by the fact that "a massive 71% is P2P traffic". First, computer networks copy information. And second, the Internet was and is built on porn and copyright infringement. Personally, I think laws which make all ISPs criminals is a bad idea. Personally, I don't think personal, physical copying is a right which should not be taxed. Sharing is a different matter.
True capitalists are all for the right to give things away. That's among the biggest of reasons they oppose the death tax.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are not true capitalists? They don't oppose the estate tax. It is not difficult to find capitalists who support the idea of an estate tax.
The main reason it is an issue seems to be 18 very rich families have purchased enough influence to make it an issue.
Libertarians oppose the estate tax because they oppose taxation in general. Taxation and government are not necessarily anti-capitalist, though Libertarians may disagree.
You can't give things away that the government takes away first.
That is not always true. Generally, the government cannot take what you give away first. Mr. Buffett just greatly reduced the potential tax liability on his estate by giving away 85% of it. Every year, you can decrease your tax liability by giving away some money. In fact, you can give away so much money, that the government will give you back money that they have already taken from you. If the government takes your assets based on some criminal or civil action, your statement holds true; but I don't believe it is true in most cases in the context of federal taxation.
The incentive to give things away created by the estate tax is one of the arguments for keeping it. Sales taxes and usage fees generally create no such incentive.
As a matter of fact, because a communist society doesn't recognize the concept of private property, how can you give something away if you don't have the right to own it in the first place?
I'm certainly not an expert, but I believe the theory goes something like this. You give away the value of your labor in return for what you need. There is no need for charity, because you will not be denied something you need because someone else is claiming it as property. Of course, things work differently in practice; but, that is true of most political and economic theories.
Ah... downmodded. You always hope against experience that the slashdot mods aren't going to mod based on their politics, but it always happens.
LOL. What exactly, besides your own ego, leads you to the conclusion that negative mods are any more political than positive mods? I see an awful lot of posts get pushed up to +5 for simply parroting a popular position.
What's with the "overrated" mods anyway? I don't think I've ever given out a negative mod myself. The point is to find good points to mod up, not to piss on people's arguments if you feel offended. What good can come of downmodding?
While I and the moderator guidelines generally agree with you, I've used "overrated" mods before. I mean, how "insightful" can a one liner Ben Franklin quote really be when not tied into the topic at hand with an actual insight? Negative moderation ultimately serves the same good as positive moderation, attempting to draw the needles from the haystack. Sometimes that means pushing some of the hay back into the stack. For me, the "overrated" and "underrated" mods say more about the other mods than the post itself.
While I don't see the "overrated" mod which offended you, perhaps the moderator simply felt that replying to your own posts, making the same points, at some point ceases to be insightful or interesting. "Redundant" probably would have worked as well. OT could also have been applied because we have drifted fairly far from TFA.
I found out that I had left out some additional interesting info I'm sure some doe-eyed liberal can take horrible offense at.
That's an interesting perspective. TFA is about some German filing a patent on a new type of firearm with secure ammunition. It seems to be the "doe-eyed" conservatives who are all worked up that this somehow threatens their gun rights.
I guess the lesson should be to beware of statistics.
While the attribution of "lies, damn lies, and statistics" may be murky, the insight is clear.
But in the gun-rights debate, it seems that the "save the children" crowd are the ones most prone to either make up random statistics or misuse actual ones.
I find statistics are abused more often than not in public discourse. Afterall, you need something to back-up your lies and damn lies.
To get back to TFA, the guy designed a new type of firearm and ammunition. It does not sound like this technology can be easily retro-fitted onto existing firearms or ammunition. From a "oh no, they're takin' away my guns!" perspective, this technology does not seem very threatening. It does not seem likely that there is any lobby sufficiently strong to mandate the use of a German firearm technology on a broad scale in the United States. And even if there were, it does not alter all of the existing firearms or the market for more standard types of ammunition. I can see a number of applications for this type of technology, but gun control in the U.S. does not seem like one of them.
The problem here is we are not really talking ISPs, we are talking major network providers. You might be able to find another ISP, but they are just hooked into the same upstream provider. Neither end point need be a direct customer of the network provider for them to impose a QOS tax, the traffic simply needs to cross their network at some point. The telcos know exactly where they sit in the customer food chain, between the customer and anything on the Internet.
For "the market" to handle this, there would need to be a functioning market.
Fear of these types of technology is not really based in their lack of openness, but in their applications. If the government wants to implant some RF tracking device in my head, the fact they will let me know how to use the signal to activate my garage door doesn't really remove my fear. Open standards can be used to implement all sorts of things which may or may not be good.
I have two main concerns with advanced authentication systems. First, they create a false sense of certainty, eroding the presumption of innocence. Second, I'm concerned about the amount of data collected and retained, and how the information is used.
First off, there is an assumption here that the government is entitled to control public resources by default, and regulate people who use them by implication. That's a huge assumption and it's not true.
/. may lack in learned economic opinion, it may make up for in technical understanding of the telcom and Internet marketplaces.
You only need to make that assumption if you ignore the existing reality. The U.S. telecom market was built and is currently shaped by heavy government regulation. The government entitlement to do so is sort of moot at this point. A telecom "free-market" is not one of the options on the table.
Second off, there is the assumption here that telcos are doing some evil deed that needs to be stopped. That is also a huge assumption.
This is incorrect. The telecoms need not do anything particularly "evil"; they just need to behave as any business would. Assuming that they will do what they can to maximize profit is very reasonable in a capitalist society.
They financed the lines, not Google. If Google thinks they have a better plan, then lay some phone lines and do it. God only knows Google has the money.
This ignores the part public money and government power has had in building the telecom networks. Given corporate taxation, Google Inc. probably did not contribute much to building these networks, but the general population sure has. Google's money will only get them so far, at many points they will be running into government regulation which blocks them from entering the market.
Third off, there is the assumption that market forces on their own are "untrustworthy" to stop such scheems. . . . Same here. I would love nothing more than to see the telcos try this and have their ass kicked in the marketplace to only be come eternally irrelavent.
When we are talking about cartels and monopolies, market forces are already hugely distorted. SBC and Verizon did not end up buying AT&T and MCI because they kicked their ass in the market. They ended up eating their lunch because they succeeded in using regulation enter the long distance market, while leveraging their physical monopolies to restrict competition in the local service and DSL markets. The telcos know that you'd be hard pressed to get anywhere on the Internet without crossing their networks as some point. At least in my area, market forces have been insufficient to get me competitive choice in DSL, or even options competitive with those available in more "socialist" economies.
Fourth off, there is no understanding here of how monopolies work, only a herd mentality. The rail road regulations didn't stop the abuses of the railroad barrons, they only just raised the regulatory costs of getting into the rail business which consolidated their power. It is not a cooncidence that the passanger rail business in the USA is stagnent to this day.
There certainly are lots of arm-chair economists. Some seem to follow particular economic ideologies almost like a religion. What
In sum, net neutrality is anything but "neutral" and it just plain sucks.
Well, that depends on who you are. Net neutrality attempts to make/keep the Internet neutral. It sucks for the major carriers, but it is good for companies which would like to offer Internet services. A tiered Internet would help telecoms, but could more or less shut down VoIP start-ups and any new service the telecoms don't really like.
Net neutrality is really about defining what the Internet is, more than it is telling the telecoms what to do. The current "best-effort" Internet creates a level playing field for all sorts of companies in all types of services. The telecoms are threatened by this because they cannot control when some yahoo designs a new service which undercuts one of their monopoly revenue streams. A tiered Internet would allow them to artificially raise barriers to entry to markets on the Internet. The telecom and cable markets are not free as it is. Net neutrality prevents these government protected companies from exerting control over the much more free market of the Internet.
FWIW, because they would be removing impediments to how the telcos do business, this sounds to me like deregulation...I have a hard time opposing that in most cases. It may suck for the consumer in the short term, but it will end up creating competition in the market.
How exactly will it create comptition when telcos have legislated monopolies?
Net Neutrality is really about preventing the telcos from using their existing monopolies to restrict competition and innovation on the Internet. The telcos would like to shut down things like VoIP, and prevent new services from arrising which undercut their existing services or services they would like to offer. There is nothing currently preventing the telcos from selling as much bandwidth, from anywhere to anywhere, to anyone they like. There is nothing preventing them from carving up their pipes however they like.
Net Neutrality serves to keep the Internet a more or less open market. It prevents the access cartels from using their monopolies to control the Internet through extortion. Compare the rate of innovation in the U.S. cellular market compared to the Internet market. From a free market perspective, I see no reason why it is better to allow the telcos to make themselves the gatekeepers of the Internet.
If you want to de-regulate telecom in the U.S., you need to think a lot bigger than simply opposing new regulations. Allowing existing government backed cartels to raise artificial barriers to entry to markets on the Internet does not seem like a pro free market position.
Those rights you think you have are an illusion I'm afraid.
They became nonviable the day some guy called Muhammad said "Now go kill all the infedels".
So basically your argument is that the entire concept of the freedom and rights as embodied by the U.S. Constitution was nonviable a full 1200 years before it was written? For a nonviable concept, it sure seems to have worked pretty well so far.
The world has never been at a shortage of those who would take away your rights. Documents like the U.S. Constitution were not written in ignorance of that fact, but in response to it.
You see, there are entire nations that are teaching their subjects right from childhood that the west is evil and needs to be cleansed in the name of Allah.
Interestingly, the worst offenders in this seem to be our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Go ask at your local mosque how long they think it will be until your wife/partner will be wearing a burqa.
I'm fairly certain I will be required to wear (or be implanted with) and RFID tag long before any radical muslim is in position to make U.S. policy or law.
Iran, for example, is now run by a man who claims his role is to quicken the arrival of the muslim messiah, an event which according to the Quaran can only come to pass by means of greatly increased chaos in the world.
The President of Iran does not run Iran. Before you give up your freedom, you might want to actually use it to learn about and understand the nature of "the enemy". There are those in the U.S. who wish to impose Christian Dominion over the U.S. and the world in order to make way for the return of the Christian messiah. In my opinion, these people stand a much better chance of subverting the U.S. Constitution than a bunch of people on the other side of the world.
Yes people use terrorism to push their own agendas. Yes America is rife with corruption and far from perfect. Yes freedom is important and people must be wary of attempts to subjigate it. But to pretend that people would be better off without any terrorism safeguards is utterly irresponsible beyond stupidity.
When the "terrorism safeguards" pose a greater theat to the U.S. Constitution than the terrorism they were meant to address, I think the safeguards are irresponsible, and those who support them beyond stupid. If you support the U.S. Constitution, you must accept that it would allow for a large armed force of Musmims to exist in the U.S., and that would be O.K. as long as they supported the U.S. Constitution. Giving up freedom and rights so that they cannot be taken away seems more like surrender than safeguarding.
By taxpayers, they could also mean businesses. I'm not sure how this tax was applied, but I would imagine that any number of large corporations would like to get rid of this tax.
While I agree that "inappropriate" could be debated, I don't think this is as illegal as you think. You do not have a right to extracirricular activities and you are not forced to participate. So, signing this agreement is voluntary. I believe this is how they got drug testing into some school districts. State law may limit the type of "disciplinary action" could take, but I believe many districts already make students sign agreements which cover activities outside of school in order to participate in extracirricular activities, the Internet is just a new angle.
The difference with attempting it through the DMV is the number of voters you impact. Most voters couldn't give a damn about school kids, or are coming from the "protect the children" mind set. As we have learned from the War on Terror, many people seem to think that protection is achieved by giving up your rights.
I think it is B.S., but when growing and consuming a plant entirely on your own private property can be regulated as interstate commerce; I don't have much faith in the courts limiting the reach of government.
Yes, but this applies to non private resturants. Actually even private clubs can get into trouble for descrimination.
Can you cite some examples of state funded restaurants in Europe which exclude people based on class? I imagine there could be some given the legacy of royalty and such, but is this really the result of anything Liberal or Left-Wing, or of conservatives supporting the tradition of monarchy? The original post was suggesting that these restaurants in Europe are evidence of Liberal elitism. Perhaps if someone provided examples it would be more clear.
As for private clubs running afoul of anti-descrimination laws, does that not also happen in Europe? Are the clubs or the laws the results of liberals? Which are more elitist?
I look forward to you telling me that we in the US are just as bad.
I was aware of the story you present. I agree it is terrible.
Perhaps you will remember the Branch Davidians? Now, in my experience, an armed standoff with the U.S. government tends to end one of two ways, surrender or death. In light of that, the Branch Davidians first used their children as human shields in hopes of forcing a third possible outcome, and in the end allowed their children to be burned alive in support of their religeous and political beliefs. And really, the idea of sacrificing your children in support of your faith is something which is common to Christianity and Islam going back to Abraham. I'm sure both the Davidians and "The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" felt they were following the will of God. And I'm certain I could come up with Muslims and Christians who would say that they were not.
You can find American Christian sects which advocate all sorts of crazy things. Go do some research on dominion theology. Go do some research on Aryan Nations. You will find that there are Christian groups which sound very similar to radical Islamic groups.
My point was not really that "we" are as bad as "them". I was mainly attempting to show that the original poster's assertions did not support his conclusions. It is generally difficult to make broad generalizations about groups as large as Europeans or Muslims which do not end up being true for humanity as a whole.
The original poster said: "In the Middle East, the imans or Islamic Religious rulers dictate how you live your life even to the type of clothes you wear such as jeans not being acceptable."
Israel is in the Middle East. There are Jewish sects where the type of clothes you wear are dictated by religious leaders. In the U.S., there are Christian sects which dictate the type of clothes their followers can wear. Does this mean that Israel, the Hasidim, and the Amish hate America for the freedom afforded the common man? Does this sound like valid reasoning to you?
In Europe, there are still some old social rules that you cannot patronize certain restaurants if a member of the lower class even if you can afford to go there.
Doesn't the U.S. also have private clubs which can more or less deny you access for whatever reason they like?
In the Middle East, the imans or Islamic Religious rulers dictate how you live your life even to the type of clothes you wear such as jeans not being acceptable.
The U.S. has no shortage of conservative church leaders who would be glad to tell you what type of clothes to wear, what activities you may engage in, who to associate with, and who to vote for. We even have some factions which would like to enforce their religious rules on all citizens.
In this country, it is the liberals that have disdain towards common people.
There is no shortage of conservatives who do all of the things you mention. Does that mean that conservatives have disdain toward the common people too? Elitism crosses political, religious, and economic lines. Egos are a part of human nature, and few/none are immune. Elites in the U.S. push policies from all sides. They do not show disdain towards the common people because they are "liberal" or "conservative", but because they view themselves as above the common people. Some of them simply have no understanding of what life as a common person is like. What you may perceive as "disdain" may simply be them looking out for their own interests.
Personally, I think one of the many unfortunate things about the current U.S. political scene is the demonization and redefinition of the word "liberal". In the U.S., we should all be liberals of one type or another. The set of beliefs we supposedly agree on (like the Constitution) are liberal. Conservatives should be opposed to radicals. All of us liberals should be opposed to authoritarians. If I were cynical, I might believe that the demonization of liberalism was done intentionally to widen the door for authoritarianism, which seems to cross political and economic boundaries as well.
If either the "liberals" or the "conservatives" not elitist, why are they discussing getting rid of the "death tax" (which only hits the elite) and not the self-employment tax?
And they asked for a court's permission without asking for a court's permission?
TFA is talking about different things. NSLs from the FBI do not go before the FISC. The FISC issued 2072 special warrents in addition to the 9254 NSLs from the FBI.
Between you and the FISA court set up to determine the legality of said wiretaps I'll have to side with the judges of FISA and according to them, Bush was fully within the recognized powers of the Presidency to authorize the NSA taps.
One of the FISC Judges reportedly resigned in protest. I don't think this is really as cut and dried an issue was you suggest. The FISC is also not really charged with finding this program legal or not.
Do you content that the Diebold voting machines are programmed in a way that makes them favor Republicans over Democrats?
That is really beside the point. The fact that they make wholesale tampering so much easier and so less traceable. When Diebold comes in and "upgrades" the machines with un-certified code before an election, they could really hand the election to whomever they wanted. Is this a good situation as long as they hand the election to the highest bidder or the candidate least likely to regulate voting machines?
Actually, a government law that obligates a company to change how they do business is anti-free market. All the DMCA does is give formal protection to DRM software that precedent normally gave them anyway.
The DMCA very much obligates companies to change how they do business. The DMCA was needed because these controls were not at all supported by precedent. If I wanted to evaluate wall safes, I could buy a bunch and try to break into them. While the DMCA can't currently prevent me from trying, it can certainly prevent me from sharing my findings.
By your definition, all IP, and really all law in general, is anti-free market.
At any rate, you've been quite thoroughly convinced that copy protected music will lead a multitude of other things. Is there anything other than speculation to back any of those up, or is it just hyper-paranoia?
You obviously haven't been paying close attention. DRM is already extending much further than music. The DMCA has already prompted law suites in areas such as printer catrideges and garage door openers. Trusted computing has a lot of potential change how computers can be used.
Have you gone to the trouble of actually reading the fine print?
Not recently, but if it is anything like most one-sided contracts, it probably includes clauses which release the vendor from any liablity and allows them to change the agreement without notice.
Are you saying that big corporations with a whole lot to lose in a class action suit are lieing when they say they are not connecting the CC info on the purchase with the club card?
In general, yes I do believe big corporations would lie about that. But in this case, you don't even have a signed agreement to dispute. Their agreement was with Mr. I. P. Freely, not you. Since you are using his club card, are you guilty of fraud? Identity theft? Good luck with your law suit from the class of liers. What sort of damage or injury did you suffer from them figuring out your lie?
On one occassion, before my wife and I were married, a store objected to allowing her to use my club card with her credit card. Whether this was simply an over-zealous employee or something built into the data system I don't know. But in my experience, people who create and use corporate data systems rarely see, and even more rarely read, the laws and/or contracts which govern the data they are working with.
Just more from the tinfoil hat people.
I usually find them to be more insightful than the average rose colored glasses people.
Having worked in an organization of similar size and disarray, I can sympathize with your position. Having spent most of the time on both sides of the computer/network security fence, I have both shared your opinion and had to answer it, often simultaneously.
There is no way in the world that I would allow an end-user rights to do this, but, it I have to get to HP for print drivers, there is no need for further approval.
From a network security perspective, you ARE the end-user. I agree that your current procedure sounds stupid, but if I was building a network intended to protect national security information, there is no way I'd let admins download crap off the Internet and install it on the network. I don't care how secure you think your connection with HP is; but that's just me. Your current regulation seems to be more about creating a paper trail than directly improving security, perhaps they are just documenting going around a regulation because the support infrastructure required by the regulation does not exist at this point. An approved list does not really address the threat, unless it is enforced somewhere in the network. But in an organization the size of DHS, someone should be centrally certifying copies of software as common as HP printer drivers.
I'm not sure where you think that I have an attitude issue with this procedure, my issue is with those who consitently blast off saying that nothing is secure and I'm faced with procedures that make it hard to get to the basic tools that I need to do my job in a timely manner.
Keeping data secure is a very important job, that's a given.
Perhaps it is just perspective, but your issue illustrates my point. If security problems do exist, people blasting off about it is good, no matter how annoying. I don't like the sound of my alarm clock, but I'm glad it goes off. Where your perspective comes into play is that you seem to view security and security procedures as separate from your job. I contend that they are not. They may make your job harder or less fun, but they as much "your job" as whatever your real job is.
That's why I say that we need more facts. There are networks set up for the express purpose of being able to access the web as any home computer would. There are people who have to have this type of set-up to work. If the committee sees this, it's a risk, but, how else should they go about doing what they have to do? They didn't identify what aspect of the network, or even which network was the one that was found to be "failing". The segment that I work with was recently assessed and the only issue that I had was an easy fix, minor oversight that in no way comprimised any data....that's not in the news.
At least according to TFA, the grades are the result of internal audits. So, I suspect most of "the facts" aren't going to be openly published. Security through obscurity may not be good, but it is better than publishing a detailed list of poor security practices throughout the government. You got the facts you needed from your audit. If other groups did not, then it is a failure of the group doing the auditing. Telling someone that they failed, but not why they failed is hardly helpful.
If you want to create a network which simulates "any home computer", consumer ISP links are not that expensive. If your job requires one, you should certainly be allowed to have one; but I don't see any good reason why it should be connected to the secure network. There should be procedures governing how you may communicate between the two in a secure manner.
What bristled me enough to respond initially was the notion that security procedures were too strict and that they were preventing you from doing your job. If you view security procedures as part of your job, rather than opposing your job; I think you are more likely to be secure, and more likely to help the organization be secure. From what you described, it does not sound like the s
You obviously don't understand what this OMB report is all about... It's a report card on FISMA compliance, not on the level of Security inherent to the environment at any of those Agencies. This was an auditing exercise... Not a Systems Penetration test.
Oh, I understand. I think my 10+ years in Internet/network security has just given me a different perspective with respect to the role of auditing and security procedure compliance and how they relate to the "level of security inherent to the environment." There is a lot more to security than penetration testing.
The Agencies you cite from the article (NSF, GSA, EPA, and Dept. of Labor) have only demonstrated their ability to contend with the paper tiger of FISMA compliance, which is, frankly, what I'd expect from a bunch of pencil pushers and petty buearocrats of the type you'd find at any of those agencies.
That's funny. . . The main point there was to illustrate that FISMA compliance is possible without disconnecting from the rest of the world. Calling them names really doesn't change that. I suggest that they have been more successful because they are smaller. And perhaps because their intended missions are not really in line with the current administration; therefore, they have plenty of time to work on FISMA compliance. In any case, perhaps the pencil pushers and petty bureaucrats at Agriculture, Defense, Energy, State, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs could see if they could learn something from "those" agencies which did manage to improve their level of FISMA compliance.
I'm not defending DHS. They should be doing a better job, but as a previous poster accurately pointed out, this is not a 3-year old Department built from scratch. This is a conglomeration of 22 federal agencies that each had historical ties to other Departments until 3 years ago, and they are now in the midst of the largest "Corporate Merger" in history. If you don't think it takes some time to get your arms around something like that, I'd like to see you give it a try.
Luckily I happen to work for an organization which is larger than DHS in both budget and manpower. In the last 10 years we have been through more mergers and reorganizations than I care to remember. So, not only have I tried it, I've been through it several times at this point. I've seen mergers which were organized well, and I have seen ones which were not organized well. Perhaps I am not making a big enough allowance for the intractability of government vs. corporate bureaucracy, but in my experience if you do not have at least some sort of statement as to "we will do this" after three years, there are serious problems with upper management. In my personal experiences, this was because upper management was focused on enriching themselves while staying out of jail, not building and running an effective organization. I suspect that things at DHS are not that much different.