Deliberation of "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace" 226
An anonymous reader writes "Per the Federal Register the National Infastructure Advisory Council will have a public meeting (telephonically) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm EST on 1/8/2003 to deliberate on the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. 'Written comments may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting.' Details can be found in text format or in PDF."
Keep yer cool (Score:1, Insightful)
Centralized exchanges (Score:5, Insightful)
So I asked myself, how can centerlizing the internet prevent terrorists from taking out large chunks of the system? Answer: It can't, and in fact makes it easier to do so. But it does make intercepting e-mail much easier.... Ahh. That's the REAL answer.
Plain economics should derail it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said, good sir. I say verily, that is the last thing should want from ourselves. We shant let it be known to our noble masters that freedom is a virtue and a right that we hold dear to our hearts, and desire to proclaim it loudly from deep within our souls. Would that it be known, we should be condemned as insurgent heretics, and should rightly be burned at the stake, with the witches and basphemers.
Perhaps we would better let it be known what we desire if we lay prostrate before his excellency and humbly beg for his mercy.
-------------
On an entirely different note...
Bush revises the Bill Of Rights. [theonion.com]
Fact or Fiction? Hard to tell, isn't it?
woah, slow the paranoia just a little (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:my hopes... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a bit of an understatement. About 4000 died in the 1952 smog in London. Note it was a smog not fog, so there was an enemy (the factories, buses, etc) Here [metoffice.com] for more info.
The Black Death might have been a better example. We are talking 75 MILLION people dying there.
Take a look here [geocities.com] to put things in perspective.
Banks et. al. run on private networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Banks run on private networks like SWIFT, not on the internet. Your personal account might have some kind of web access, but not the intra-bank network.
The same goes for any large enterprise that gives a damn about their security and reliability. The internet is unreliable, insecure, and can never be anything but by the very nature of it's design. (Note: fault resilience such as rerouting around failed nodes is not the same thing as fault tolerant -- the segments behind the failed node are still unreachable.)
When you say they "aren't trying to control cyberspace", I just have these visions of the founding fathers of the US inscribing "the right to bear arms" with the intent of allowing the country to defend itself, and the modern twisting of those words to justify possession and use of assault weapons and handguns far beyond the defense of a nation.
I look at the "temporary" income taxes that were to pay for war costs, which are still in place and increasing.
I look at the insanity of a "War on Drugs" that destroys the careers of hundreds of thousands of people for smoking a joint, while the death toll on the highways and roads due to "legal" drunk drivers continues.
I look at Hollings & co. selling out to the entertainment industry, even though it damages an IT industry worth many times that amount to the nation.
Trust them? Sure, I trust them. I trust them to steal my income, invade my privacy, interfere with my life, and ignore our objections to what is rapidly becoming a police state.
Thank God I'm getting out of this screwed up country in a few days. Maybe in a few years after the American people have revolted against the insanity it will be safe to come back with the expectation of being allowed to live without excess interference from a corporate-run government.
Re:*Ahem* (Score:4, Insightful)
What it has become in recent years is certainly quite different from what the inventors intended.
Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (Score:2, Insightful)
You missed the point (Score:3, Insightful)
The backbone providers are not the internet. They provide dedicated, optionally secure, and optionally fault-tolerant data links.
The internet may or may not use fibre that is strung in parallel with those links (i.e. part of the same bundle), but it does not run on the same physical fibre. I've worked on a provisioning system that is used to manage those resources, and the "internet" is miniscule compared to the number of links that are managed for private business and government.
Want to take out those links? Go to isolated spots along certain railway tracks, highways, and other infrastructure where the physical fiber is run. Cut the fibre or plant a bomb. Goodbye several petabytes of capacity until someone can find the breach and fix it. How did any of the government proposals even try to prevent the damage from happening?
"Security" has never been anything but a smokescreen to justify increased power in the hands of a few, and anyone who thinks they are "secure" just happens to be naive enough to believe them.
The worst "terrorism" we have to fear in North America is from our own governments. Not to offend anyone who lost friends or family in the WTC on 9/11, but more people than that are killed every year by terrorists in many countries, without having led to knee-jerk police state behavior.
Don't believe me?
Look at the current crop of anti-drug ads in the US. Blatant lies and FUD -- most marijuana is grown in North America by North Americans who keep their assets in North America and spend most of the profits in (you guessed it!) North America. Heroin and Opium might be another story, but that isn't what the government is trying to convince everyone, because it wouldn't make people as nervous (everyone knows at least one pot smoker, but how many of you know heroin users?)
Do some checking and find out how many innocent people have been killed by government agents (police SWAT teams) raiding the wrong house. Look into the number of people currently being held because they immigrated from the wrong nation, or because their second cousin has a friend who knows a guy who claimed to be with Al Queda. Ask someone of Japanese descent how much more "secure" they felt for being imprisoned until the war was over.
Democracy vs Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
We're at a pretty critical crossroads now, where the rights of large organizations (corporate and governmental) are at a precarious balance with the rights of individual citizens. In particular, democracy coming into direct conflict with safety, and, in other arenas (such as intellectual property issues [eg, RIAA, MPAA]), clashing directly with capitalism.
If the government feels that the best way to ensure safety is to prevent the unfettered, unmonitered flow of individuals, then one has to ask how true democracy can really be practiced.
The "war on terrorism" threatens to turn us from a nation-of-rules to a nation-of-men. Once we entrust *any* group of people to regulate us with minimal checks and balances, then any sense of democracy will is doomed. I can't think of a better environment for abuse then monitoring virtually all electronic communications between private citizens.
Imperfect security is the price we pay for our democratic ideals. This is a price I think most of us are willing to pay for our freedom.
Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Score:2, Insightful)
The article in question reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I've always considered "the enemy" that threatens the "security of a free state" to be internal, as opposed to crime. As to what compromises militia, the courts have ruled:
The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''
So call me nutty, but the constitution protects my right to own a weapon, for militaristic use, to defend the country against enemies, domestic or foreign, that threaten the freedom of the country. It's a democratic failsafe against government.
Re:Securing Cyberspace (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope that once this idea takes hold bright programmers will see an oppertunity tomake products that can help the everyday grandma exercise the right to control your computer/network.
You'd think so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't roll out yet (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, a few months ago, the judicial dept. made a small grunt and sort of woke up out of the post 9/11 slumber to call the guvment's handling of suspected terrorists unconstitutional. IIRC, three district judges denounced the administration's actions and called for change.
In short, we have a design of checks and balances in this country to help ensure that no groups gets too powerful.
The only thing we're missing today is an informed populace. Most folks make decent dicisions, given the proper information, but the trouble is, almost no Americans have it. Our lives are care-free, and we like it that way. As long as we can eat our Big Macs and idly bitch about other dumb people, we'll roll over to anyone.
Bush or someone will take it too far, and the pendulum will swing back, eventually. This country is too well founded and the people too (thankfully) brainwashed into holding freedom dear to turn into a Nazi-like state.
Just don't be a minority and you're ok.
Re:opinions: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trading Freedom for Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Good riddens (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure things aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean you should not try to attack the issues you can reasonably expect results with. Only so many resources are available, so pick the battles with the most reasonable chance of success first.
For the record we DID try to police alcohol once..
Nor is the US perfect, but we are still the best damned country out there.
And what the hell does cyberspace have to do with the 2nd amendment? Which btw you have totally wrong.. it was about the rights of the INDIVIDUAL to bear arms to protect ones self.. the preface of the entire constitution was based on individual rights and governmental RESTRICTIONS. It had little to do with the rights of a government..
Though I also disagree with their plans to regulate data traffic @ the backbone level, due to individual privacy issues and implied regulation of free-speech. Things that are also in OUR constitutional bill of rights which you seem to have a dis-taste for..
Go back to your socialist country and stay.
Oh, and don't cry for assistance later, as most every other country has done, after bashing the US.. we are bad.. so bad, until you need us.. screw off.
Re:*Ahem* (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not, but there are many, many thousands of computers on the internet that ARE on American soil, and the US government could justifiably have the jurisdiction to secure THEM.
The internet was never created to be regulated or controlled rather, allowed to evolve free of the contraints of the non-virtual world.
That's hippie bullshit. The internet allows people who are not geographically proximate to cooperate and share resources with each other. Period. There's no utopian fantasy involved.
2 - Concentrate on your own Nation's concerns, like the economy, and social issues.
I'm assuming from the tone of your post that you are not a US citizen.
Why don't you shut the fuck up then and concentrate on YOUR own nation's concerns, rather than criticizing my country for things it hasn't even done yet? Asshole.
Re:Right to bear arms (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when there was only 13 colonies... a militia constituted of every man and boy that could carry a gun. i.e. Everyone....
There was no draft... you didn't sign up, or were part of an elite group.
The dictionary is giving you todays meaning of the word. The whole point of being able to bear arms, is to protect yourself from your own government. The way America rose above to what it is today. Without the right for the individuals to bear arms, there would have never been a revolution.
A revolution, is overthrowing your own government, in case you didn't know that. Now with out weapons.. how are you supposed to do that????
You can't.
That's why it is a right to keep and bear arms. To protect yourself, against your own government... Now I know it wasn't spelled out word for word for you... but if you can use the internet, you should hopefully be smart enough to understand that.