Because Only Terrorists Use 802.11 813
skinnyd writes "Consultants working for the Department of Homeland Security have announced that the Feds view open WiFi as a means of abetting terrorists, and say that they will compel the open wireless operators will have to close off their nets. 'Homeland Security is putting people in place who will be in a position to say, "If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating."'
Ludicris (Score:4, Funny)
and today all pr0n is banned becuase only terrorists shoot a load off
Re:Ludicris (Score:4, Insightful)
Wifi scares them because it's not something they can just turn off like any ISP.
Re:Ludicris (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually asked a 3com sales guy about it a year ago and got "Well personally there is nothing on my network worth breaking into and I doubt there is anything on yours either"
These people need to take action and clean up before the govt gets more motivated to regulate them.
Re:Ludicris (Score:5, Interesting)
Should it be illegal for businesses to have poor security for their buildings?
Breaking and entering (in the physical and electronic world) is already a crime. Only a police state regulates the actions of potential victims of crimes to "protect" them.
Isn't if tunny tho (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not far off from more examples of Starbucks-taking-over-wifi-everywhere. R.I.P. free and open networks.
Re:Ludicris (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you realize this, but I feel like spelling it out for everyone who would read this sentiment and agree... Even if you don't have any DATA on your network that any hacker would want, you still have a NETWORK that hackers would love to control. 9999 times out of 10,000 "hackers" are not looking for blueprints on your top secret inventions that they could sell to a competitor. They are not looking for your credit card databases, nor your emails to use as blackmail. 9999 times out fo 10,000 they are not looking for data AT ALL! Instead they are looking for a network that they can control that will allow them to go and attack a DIFFERENT network. IF you wanted to hack into the DOD's computer network, would you do it from your home machine? Or ould you do it through a series of hacked accounts on other networks? If you are hosting child porn, would you prefer to have it sitting on the machine under your desk at the office, or would you prefer to put it on somone elses machine entirely?
If you think you are safe becuase there is no important *data* on your machines that hackers would want, you are not safe.
Next time you get this kind of answer make sure you get in writing the guy's willingness to take full responsibility when the MiBs come knocked at your door becuase your hacked machine was used to send death threats to the president.
Re:Ludicris (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is that you felt compelled, and justifiably so, to post that insightful yet "Anti-Amarikin" remark as an AC. Just keep in mind that in the future, anonymous posting on Slashdot may have to be eliminated...because only Terrorists post as Anonymous Cowards.
Re:Ludicris (Score:3, Insightful)
So a person who stands up to the gov't is automatically classified as an "anti-american", and thus a labelled as a "terrorist"?
How convenient for the gov't and their media goons. It just makes anyone they want to take down so much easier as a "terrorist".
Re:Ludicris (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ludicris (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, exactly. When you respond to a troll, the terrorists have already won.
Great...Big Brother, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
For God's sake, man, give us back our freedoms [mac.com]!!
Re:Great...Big Brother, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem is only Campaign funders [aoltimewarner.com] run cable networks, wireless is a competitor that is cheap to set up, impossible to control, and very useful. Like the old BBS's, or peer to peer.
Re:Great...Big Brother, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Read the article? No, too hard? (Score:5, Informative)
So "Big Brother" in this case is saying, "Make your data harder to snoop".
Re:Read the article? No, too hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
My issue is this: we had a good thing. WiFi was really beginning to gain ground, was really going to be something great. Imagine; freely available Internet access for anyone with a laptop supporting the standard (which most do nowadays). It's everywhere, and it's working.
So what does Homeland Security do? Do they go after the holes (numbering hopefully less than WiFi access points) that hackers exploit in the first place? No. Do they go after Microsoft and (gasp!) Linux for security issues? No. What they choose to do instead is to attack something that in fact has little role in the scheme of things, choosing to ignore the real vulnerabilities.
Let me quote that again....
Right, right.... Good to know that since it doesn't matter where they get in, we're going to spend untold millions of dollars to infringe on personal rights so that we can stop them from getting into the places that don't matter. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the DOS attacks on the root Internet servers amount to approximately bupkiss?
What I do like, however, is Sky Dayton (Boingo CEO) saying that wireless security is possible; it just needs to be easier. Right on, Sky; I agree with you completely! Instead of attaching labels to something so that it can be instantly regulatable (I'm pretty sure that's a word), he's opting to make wireless security ma- and pa- friendly.
And isn't that what it's ultimately about?
Re:Great...Big Brother, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of all the hoopla about homeland security, people are pointing out that *any* insecurity that allows people to access networks in unauthorized ways can be a vector for Bad People who want to do Bad Things.
The same could be said about critical security problems in networked computers that may be exploited to attack critical networks. I'm sure that federal cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke would say that any insecurity that enables unauthorized network access *may* be a national security threat.
It doesn't say that you can't have a home or office wifi network. It doesn't even say that freely available wifi is a tool of the terrorists. It says, that systems should be secured, and that responsibility lies at many levels (manufacturers, corporate users, etc).
This isn't to say that the government doesn't engage in FUD or that civil rights aren't under attack. But it makes mare sense to fight [eff.org] the real threats to individual liberties.
Insecure Networks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm... wonder if that means running a non-up-to-the-latest-patch OS or application is a crime?
Re:Insecure Networks? (Score:3, Informative)
In some industries, it is; run a google search on HIPAA.
Re:Insecure Networks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seen the recent thread on this on /.? It turns out all the big players, starting with MS, have exemptions for running their systems regardless. As always, the law will be imposed upon those lacking the legal resources to resist.
Re:Insecure Networks? (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before it is a crime to release software (or make available source code) that contains known security flaws?
If running a non-up-to-the-latest-patch OS or application is a crime in some industries, what liability does the software provider have? If they know of a security flaw or weakness, can they still release it for use in those industries?
Then, would it become a requirement to do a certain amount of testing for security weaknesses before releasing software?
If that happens, would sharing "in-development" source code (sourceforge) become illegal for "security reasons"?
Re:Insecure Networks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't happen. That wouldn't further the interests of the big businesses that have paid for our politicians. Outlawing open wireless nets only hurts the consumers, who aren't organized enough, and aren't informed enough to object meaningfully. It certainly helps out the ISP-megacorps who want to retain control of access.
The only way this kind of thing will stop happening is when our politicians stop having their primary source of funding/perks come from big businesses, making them more accountable to the people they are supposed to represent.
Perhaps Iraq isn't the only place due for a "regime change."
Re:Insecure Networks? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the real world, we can't all just apply every patch immediately, some of us need to make sure that a patch won't cause a problem with vital services before we do so, and contrary to what you may have read on slashdot, those verification processes aren't always trivial.
Well.. (Score:2)
Open wireless nets where anyone can log in without any trail left (other than the hacker must be physically close to the AP OR have a high gain antennae and be miles away) would allow someone to be truly anonymous online. They could trade in kiddey porn, hack poorly secured computer systems, say nasty things about federal employees...all the usual suspects that piss the government off. The government doesn't like this, and is using the umbrella of "homeland security" to do something about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (face it : any computer that controls anything truly important probably isn't connected to the internet or has extensive protection).
And this is limited to Wi-fi how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, so they wouldn't be moving as fast as they would going through a corporate network.
But if a LAN Admin is stupid enough to leave his access points open (with access to the outside world), then the company gets what it deserves for hiring an MSCE to do its network design.
Yes, I run an open AP at home (and there's nothing really interesting to look at, I assure you), but I'm not to the point where I think it's a good idea to put one on the network at work. It's been discussed before, and it'd just be more difficult than it's worth.
Help for the terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
- Public Libraries
- Kinko's
- Hotel Rooms
- Tourist Information Centers
- Airport Lounges
- Highway Rest Stops (often have Public Internet Terminals)
- Internet Cafes
- Cable Company Kiosks
I hope that helps you commit your fiendish acts of email and web browsing after all the 802.11b access points in the world have been properly secured.Praise Allah.
Re:public != insecure. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they're running IE (or a browser built on the IE engine), all you need is some useful binaries squirreled away on a webserver to do whatever you want with their computer. Security settings are almost always such that you can run untrusted EXEs. At Comdex, I ran PuTTY off of my home webserver so I could check my mail. There's no reason I couldn't have stashed some malware ahead of time and run that.
(Mozilla, OTOH, won't let you do that. It'll prompt you to save the file someplace. If "Run...", "Command Prompt", and IE are removed from the Start menu and Windows-R is trapped (it's a keyboard shortcut for Start|Run...), good luck getting your downloaded file to run...assuming that you can find a directory that'll let you save your file. (One college lab had "Run..." and "Command Prompt" removed from its machines, but opening IE and giving c:\winnt\system32\cmd.exe as the URL gave me a command prompt.))
Wi-Fi is certainly the highest priority (Score:2, Interesting)
Right... So, open Wi-Fi, with that dangerous 50-foot useable radius is a top priority for national security. Why not just set up a National Firewall [slashdot.org] instead
The article says terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break, goddamn it. Shutting down WiFi security holes will prevent intruders from going on the NETWORK?
I can understand if this is to prevent government agencies or companies with knowledge of government secrets from having wide open WiFi, but for EVERYONE?
Land of the free, just a thought.
Re:The article says terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. It is just a thought... We are obviously willing to give up our freedoms b/c of that bearded fuck w/limp and a cammo jacket...
Someone else noted that the terrorists are the only ones that will stand up. While I feel what they said is dumb, I see their point.
We are all just standing idly by the water cooler having our morning chat as President Ripper closes down the base and prepares to launch an attack.
Only the dorks know that WiFi isn't a security threat, and only the dorks know that it's only b/c coporate America wants other wireless methods to open up and make money from...
We will never convince the REST of the sheep of this...
Thus, we are all morons under the power of President Ripper.
Enjoy Strangelovian paradise. It's a blast.
Please Read "Is This the America I Love?" (Score:4, Interesting)
But I wanted it to be read more widely than was happening with it on my own little homepage so I posted a copy at Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]. An advantage of the K5 version is that it enabled followup discussion.
Here's the intro:
Thank you for your attention.Very proud to have done my small part (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the referring pages I found listed in my log is I've held it in too long: I am no longer Proud to be an American. [shadowsofnamek.com] wherein the poster says:
and so on.Look at the bottom of the guy's post where he gives a link with the text "This is what inspired me to finally say something".
I've worried about the potential for backlash by saying what I did in such a public way, and further to be making such an effort to get people to read it.
But if I was able to get even one person to speak out as this fellow said I did, well that makes it all worthwhile.
There's lots of people who posted to the K5 discussion who don't agree with what I said, but that doesn't bother me so much. I'm very pleased to have opened up so much debate. People are talking about these issues that might not have otherwise.
People need to talk about this stuff, or we will end up in a great deal more trouble than we are already in.
And there were some fairly intelligent points raised at K5 that seem to poke holes in my argument. That's OK too, because I have answers to their objections, and will be able to make some small revisions to my original piece that should ultimately make it stronger and more convincing. So in the end those who found fault with my essay have done me a favor.
Finally, in the little while between posting the above and being just about to post this, my copy of the essay has received 102 page views referred from this slashdot discussion.
I'm very glad of that - prior to posting at K5, the essay was getting about 300 page views a month. So far this month (just a few days into the month) my copy has got 594 page views, and I imagine the K5 post got many times that.
Re:In Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm makes you wonder.
In Iraq they do this [thesmokinggun.com] to you.
Getting Slashdotted... (Score:2)
More things terrorists use... (Score:5, Funny)
I really see this and the real story on the same level. Shelters are run by volunteers charitably. Open WAPs are run by volunteers charitably. Both have the theoretical possiblity of aiding terrorism. Shouldn't both be banned if one is? Seriously, how far will we tolerate having our freedoms taken away in the name of security?
Out of hand doesn't begin to describe it (Score:4, Insightful)
All this will do is cause the end of 802.11 access for most consumers until better security is devised. Corporations should be able to hire people to secure their wireless networks. Geeks will be able to secure their home networks, but right now that is beyond the average consumer. If I tried to tell my father than he should use an SSH tunnel for better security, he would look at me befuddled.
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bullshitting like that which undermines the trust of intelligent people into the administration.
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
It used to be Communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Before they had Terrorism they had Communism. Everything that didn't fit their agenda was part of a Communist plot.
Maybe you don't remember, but not too long ago, Communists would suck the blood out of your children if they were given the chance. (Funny how all those blood-suckers are now in NATO.)
Who can deny that the best thing that ever happened to this bump-in-the-road, lackluster, infantile, wannabe tricky-dick administration was Osama Bin Laden?*
*I in no way support the actions of either camp of fundamentalists. Bin Laden is as intellectually and spiritually meagre as our own pet idiot.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Funny)
And I agree with the fact that doors are insecure and should be regulated. Some buildings like the pentagon have seure doors, but do you realize just how insecure supermarket doors are? They swing open the moment anyone walks by! A terrorist can just walk right into a supermarket! This situation is intolerable! All doors must be regulated immediately!
-
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
The trust of intelligent people in the current administration was lost the day Homeland Security was created. Joseph Stalin would be proud.
This is not about security (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty blatantly obvious to anyone involved the security area that security fixes that require "securing the rest of the Internet" just aren't going to work. A good example of this is the attempt to "secure the Internet against spam." The current approach -- trusting other servers on the Internet and trying to simply secure all legtimate mail servers from spammers does not work. Keep in mind that anti-spam measures have nearly universal support, a tremendous number of volunteers, high visibility, and is a well-understood problem. It's pretty well understood now that trying to secure the Internet by securing every possible point of entry is not in the least feasible. The closest anyone has come is USENET, which is a much less critical, more tightly controlled system with the Usenet Death Penalty for offending ISPs -- and even so, as USENET aficionados know, there's still a huge amount of spam.
If the OHS is scared that they won't be able to trace someone because they're coming in from a wireless port, they need to secure all the services that they're concerned about and require a digital identification of some sort. Trying to make the Internet watertight is not, no way, no how going to happen. You can't secure the US and lock the rest of the world out, and you can't secure the entire world. You can't even reasonably secure all the possible points of entry in a state.
This isn't about security. It isn't even about technology.
Ever since Bush signalled that he was willing to back just about anything that "fought terrorism", every stupid agenda out there has managed to include "fighting terrorism". People competing with 802.11b (*cough* telecom corps pushing 3G services, currently being pretty much ignored in favor of the faster, cheaper 802.11b) would love nothing better than to hand their favorite politician a few dollars to "crack down on terrorism" on 802.11b. In contrast, *their* networks are easily monitored, and as evidenced by cells in the past, telecom corps are more than happy to use key escrow and provide information to federal agents. It's a ploy to try to save all those dollars invested in 3G, the marvellous moneymaker where telecom corps can charge you by the kilobyte. It's not a security issue.
Friends, this is US politics at its best -- "campaign contributions" (bribery) at full throttle.
It's not too hard to see where this is all going.. (Score:5, Interesting)
As with the "Great Firewall of China" articles that I've been seeing here lately, governments are fearfull of any tool that would allow people to communicate freely. Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I notice in this article that there is no discussion at all about why this is necessary for security. I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
We must force our government to explain WHY this and all of the other USA Patriot act bullshit is necessary....making Bush, Poindexter, Ashcroft and the others explain their position to everyone is the act of a real patriot.....don't believe the hype.....
Re:It's not too hard to see where this is all goin (Score:3, Insightful)
Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I agree with you up to the point where you brought in the tried and tired Big Brother rhetoric of the unhealthily paranoid.
"Homeland Security" does want to create a situation where everything is traceable, and they wouldn't be able to do it, if it wasn't for the fact that they could bully ISPs and telcos into compliance. The Internet protocols in place don't allow for normal traffic to be very traceable if you don't want it to. At the very worst, you find out what ISP somebody got access through, but the ISP refuses to say anything.
Now "Homeland Security" wants to bully all open WiFi ports into closing because of the hypothetical premise that a 'terrorist' could use the open APs to anonymously conduct terrorist business online. And that's true - but guess what, it's just as easy to splice a few wires in the right locations to get the same access, only wired. Or they could splice and then put on an AP and homebrew their comm links.
This is doing nothing except regulating a new useful technology before it even gets off the ground. I'm pissed - I want WiFi to become ubiquitous, but not with the hand of "Homeland Security" on its shoulder. What bullocks!
Note to feds: hands off my technology. If you want to touch it, you'd better be prepared to show me a search warrant.
Unfortunately, they don't even need a search warrant anymore, under these new bills. *sigh*
"Homeland" Security (Score:2)
The worst part about pronouncements like this is what will actually happen when there is some sort of important warning to get out. Wolf, I cry, Wolf!
"Domestic" security (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy. The people who came up with "Homeland" did a lot of research. Probably even more research than is put into the search for a new business names. There were probably psychologists and sociologists and focus groups - sworn to secrecy of course. "Domestic" sounds sterile and abstract, although entirely accurate. "Homeland" is a middle-america, bread-basket term. "Keep the home fires burning", "gotta protect the 'home'". "Fatherland" would have pissed off the women - besides it's already been taken. Also remember that this was aimed at the average sixth grade level of the population.
Just like you said, we americans don't have a "homeland". That's a term for a place where the people have lived continuously for many, many centuries. I don't think the two centuries we have been here counts. And besides, this is the "homeland" of the indigenous peoples who were here for centuries before we arrived\invaded\committed genocide on the previous inhabitants. I don't feel comfortable calling them "indians" as that name came from a navigational\perception error and "native americans" is another term imposed by the conquering people. Why should people already here name themselves after Amerigo Vespucci, a spanish invader?
And before I get people observing that domestic security doesn't cover those americans who might reside in another country, homeland doesn't cover it either. There may be a better description to include that, but I'm sure that those who made the decision were not nearly as concerned about accuracy as they were about spin.
The phrase "Homeland Security" pisses me off. The way Dubya says 'nuk-u-lur' pisses me off. (Actually I'm embarrassed for my country every time I hear him say it incorrectly)And the references to a (permanent - see George Orwell's 1984) "War on Terrorism" piss me off. The attacks on 9/11 were not a declaration of war, only countries can do that. They were criminal acts perpetrated by and organized group. We have plenty of laws, both domestic (RICO, etc.) and international that cover that. But to call it a criminal act and hunt down the conspirators would not have furthered the administrations agenda of restricting the constitutional rights of americans and making the middle east safe for an american pipeline to bring oil from the Balkans to the Atlantic. Is there anyone still naive enough to think that this is not about oil and american imperialism? When will we stop letting our leaders do this to us? Actually there is a really good article here [alternet.org] about why we buy it and do it to ourselves. It talks about the 'strict father' mode of communication (Obediance to authority - Conservative\Bush) vs. the 'nurturant parent' mode (Empathy and helping others -Progressive\Clinton, for example) and how they drive the american psyche. It's worth a read.
The actions in Korea and Viet Nam were not about human rights or freeing people, they were about industry and furthering a political agenda - wiping out 'communism'. The equivalent of an ideological pissing contest. (This info for the benefit of
Nope, Iraq is all about oil and Daddy's wounded pride. In addition to having the one of the worlds largest reserves of oil, it's the next place where we need to put a pipeline. And don't forget that Saddam put out a contract on George Bush the first. And that Bush the first took a lot of heat about not going on into Baghdad and Removing Saddam. He took the heat even though the greatest minds of the time said it was better for middle east and world stability to leave him there.
The U.S. action with the U.N. in Bosnia and Kosovo were primarily humanitarian actions. And under whose administration did they take place? Yup, Clinton. If there had been a republican administration in power at that time, we would not have helped. Bosnia and Kosovo have no oil or natural resources that american companies can make a profit from. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Republican administrations go to war for business and political interests, Democrats go to war for humanitarian interests. Personally, I know which one I prefer - if it has to happen at all.
I'm sorry if this has been a rant and off-topic (sort-of), but I just had to vent. Mod me down if you must, but engage me in discussion if you can. That is the very essence of our freedom.
I wonder which "experts" they listen to... (Score:2)
Did you read the artical? (Score:2, Informative)
For example. Imagine you had a bunch of windows machines on your home LAN, and they all connected to the net through a Linux or BSD firewall using NAT or something. You put up a Wifi net so you can user your laptop, and now everything's vulnerable.
The situation is even worse at a large company that might have sensitive documents, or tons of unpached computers waiting to be hacked and turned into DDOS zombies.
I don't think he's attacking open Wi-Fi connections that let anyone get online anonymously, at least not directly, just pointing out that Wi-fi can punch holes in security systems, and allow hackers to get in and fuck with your stuff.
At least, I certainly hope he's not saying the government is going to make open wi-fi illegal.
Open wifi is a tool that can be used for good or ill. Better laws would mandate that servers be patched and such.
Re:Did you read the artical? (Score:3, Insightful)
No No No, there is no need for laws; there is no need for regulation. There is no need for any of that; if you want a secure network, HIRE someone to do it or do it yourself. Everyone is always running off at the mouth with make this law, forge this law. Law, law, law for the most stupid bullshit. Our legal system is already filled with enough bullshit.
sanity run amuck (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, people today in the US fell less secure in some ways, say, when traveling on airlines. this is understandable due to the trauma of 9-11 and the threat of worse, such as the SAM attack in Kenya last week. bad things do happen in the world, they are unavoidable, and my mother would agree, better paranoid than alive.
however, it is this /.er's opinion that the right wing extremists of our beloved (not) presidential administration is overly eager to use the situation to extend the police powers of the state.
every little chink in personal liberty, every new crime invented, every new link to terrorism where it does not exist, ALL of THEM, are affronts to not only the liberty of the land of the free, but to the free world at large.
take Jose Padilla. an enemy combatant now, why? last time i looked (i took a history degree in a prior life) a Citizen of the United States had certain rights, even if he used them in a way detrimental to society. this is a "free" country, treason is an option, still punishable by death, none the less an option. that isn't to say it's my choice, but he made his willingly. why is he all of the sudden, this native born son (or bastard, don't know yet really, do we?) having something taken by Ashcroft (remember, he did lose an election to a corpse before his elevation to Grand Inquisitor), that a proper court of Law would only strip of him (this is being decided now) in the most dire of circumstances.
wi-fi security is just another nick in the neck of lady liberty. unfortunately, if you add the nicks up, there's a gaping hole at the moment, and not enough people to stand up to GOP sticks and stones making these nicks. may the god i don't believe exists help us all, without faith based government initiatives.
Open discussions and Anonymous Cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
Next week, we will determine that free society is a clear violation of the Homeland Security Act, and anybody trying to exist in one will be detained for as long as is necessary to combat this scourge of free society.
Re:Open discussions and Anonymous Cowards (Score:3, Funny)
The great firewall of America? (Score:2, Insightful)
I see something along the lines of the gov't national id here... perhaps a gov't supplied logon for every internet user? (think Microsoft Passport) something that might be required to get onto the internet? If nothing else, a more aggressive monitoring of the internet by the gov't and lots more restrictions and shutdowns, maybe things like the 'great firewall of china'.
I hope that it doesn't come to this... but it's a scary and very possible thought...
Paranoia, The Destroyer (Score:5, Funny)
I understand... (Score:3, Funny)
Sex!
Breed terrorist, breed!
+1 Too Damn Close To Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
This helps terrorism, that makes you a terrorist, X and Y give terrorists the means to Z. Give me a break. There is no way for a free society to be completely secure. This is a fact of life. Putting every little thing into either a "your helping the terrorists" or "your helping America fight the terrorists" light really doesn't do justice to the situation and trivializes the horrible things the terrorists have done by putting them into the same category as having an insecure wireless network. Come on.
</rant>
Damnit, I've got some things to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck The Dept of Homeland Security
Fuck John Ashcroft
Fuck Tom Ridge
Fuck Poindexter
Fuck every single COWARD in this administration who is so afraid of his/her own shadow that they feel the need to break down every door on Earth to hunt down everyone who might be thinking about hurting them. Grow a Goddamn pair and get out of my home; you have no business here. Come back when you have balls and a brain and have a reasonable, legal, Constitutional suggestion for how to truly improve the security of this nation. Until then, just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because you're not helping. I swear to Christ you people deserve to be put on trial for high treason. You've systematically stripped every single American of his/her rights and freedoms one by one, while simultaneously innundated our primary defenses against terrorists with tons and tons of completely irrelevant information. When we asked for a response to Sept 11, we didn't mean just any response; we wanted a REAL response. What the hell are you people thinking??? Have you all completely lost it?? Has every single person in this administration lost any and all sight of what their job is? Mr President, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That is your job description, and you need only worry about that. Please, take a moment to sit down and read the thing some time? If you simply do what it tells you to do, you'll automatically be doing everything that you're supposed to do.
This administration has, in my view, taken a complete "ends justify the means" position, and has decided that the rights, liberties, and lives of the American people are irrelevant sidenotes next to their political agendas. I am, at this point, absolutely disgusted with my own government; and I find that completely fucking pathetic.
I love my country with all my heart, but Goddamn my government's a bitch right now.
Re:Damnit, I've got some things to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
This brings me to a post I made earlier [slashdot.org]. People will bitch, moan, and ORGANIZE for a fucking television show, but they'll do shite about this. THAT, I think, is the even more pathetic than the American government.
Are there any governments left that exist FOR the people? Hmmm....
Re:Damnit, I've got some things to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all just frickin' McCarthyism.
Seriously, just go through and replace every instance of the word 'terrorist' with the word 'communist'
If you don't agree with them, you're helping the terrorists and therefore are one.
Really, it's amazing. Does anyone remember that whole rat out your terrorist neighbor program they wanted? Replace terrorist with communist and you'll see who the true enimies of freedom are.
The LAST thing these people need is more information. They had all the infomation they need to stop 9/11 from happening and they fucked it up. They need to get smarter about how they handle the info they do have. (Read as: We need smarter people in charge.)
It's not just America (Score:4, Insightful)
This is happening everywhere where there are politicians, because the Internet and all computing and advances in communications are undermining the power that governments once had in being able to monitor and control their subjugate populations. The idiocy which you see is a response to their belated realization of the new freedoms which people have acquired over the last few years, their panicked attempt to regain control. All the bogeymen are being deployed, "Stop Terrorism", "Protect the Children", even "Safeguard your Culture" in many places.
So, since the highest level of security is so important to them, comply: use the strongest encryption possible, everywhere. This will of course also make your systems unbreachable and unmonitorable by them as well. Oh dear.
Devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Interesting)
To hell with the Dept of Homeland insecurity and their ridiculous ranting. They can take their Gibsonesque FUD elsewhere.
Re:Civil Disobedience (Score:3, Informative)
In a just world, the place for an unjust person is in the prisons. But that assumes a perfect world in which we instantly know and can perfectly judge who is and is not unjust. In either Thoreau's example or mine (as they are merely inverses of one another), unrealisticly uniform standards of justice and unattainable knowledge are both required. Is it just for a poor man to steal a sheep from a wealthy man to feed his starving family after all other methods of feeding them have failed?
The Message of Homeland Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Obeying rules is a concept that must span from the average citizen, to companies, to government bodies to lawmakers. When all parties follow the rules, the rule of law is in effect and the laws are seen as legitimate.
But a schism is developing in our system of rules. A fundamental tenet of our society is a limitation in the sorts of behavior the government may proceed with, and the sorts of laws they pass. The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, are examples of rules the government must follow as part of society.
the problem with "Breaking Down the Stovepipes of Information", and other related actions, is they are against the trules of our society. It is irrelevant why those actions have been taken, towards what goal they serve to reach, the ideals behind them, or anything else. It's forbidden in our society.
When one segment of society no longer has to follow the rules, you start seeing weird behavior. Consider traffic roadblocks, or "safety checks". It's a clear violation of the 4th and 5 amendments. They've breaking rules of society. Breaking the law. But the people charged with these illegal duties do so under the guise of enforcing the law. How can they justify subserviance to the rules of society through actions that violate the rules of society?
It all falls apart. It becomes a farce. A society where anarchy and iron fist enforcement swirl about each other. The government is indulging in anarchy by not following the rules of society. Through its anarchy comes the iron fist.
I keep seeing the concept of "Zero Tolerance" popping up in government literature whenever it decides to wage a war on one sort of behavior or another. And I ask, is a government that disobeys the rules of its own society be just in trying to exact perfect obedience, or zero tolerence, from it's citizens in their conformance to the same rules?
The people behind Homeland Security and other such laws erronsously see themselves as the architects of society, when in fact their duty is to merely be servants to it. I don't want a new society, I like the one we're supposed to have just fine. If these nut jobs feel they can't work within the guidlines of our society, they are unfit for service in the government.
What exactly would be prohibited? (Score:3, Informative)
I really want to launch a free 802.11 net from my house. There is a park near where I live, and I want to aim a directional antenna over at it to share my DSL line.
I can restrict it so that only packets with destination port 80 are allowed from the wireless interface to the internet. I would run the DNS locally, so that doesn't need to go out. I can log packets, etc. Would they still call that an unsecured network?
On the other hand, what if I wanted to connect all the rooms in my apartment building with a wireless LAN. If I did that, but DIDN'T allow access to the internet, would that be an "open network?" I mean, with no connection to the internet, its pretty hard for me to see how there could be any DOS'ing or anything.
What I'm getting at, is how the hell are they going to check up on all these wireless LAN's? Are they going to send a network engineer to each one to see what security it has in place? Are they going to create licenses for public LAN operators? Or are they just going to ban 802.11?
What a rambling post. Oh well.
MM
--
More ways to limit technology (Score:3, Insightful)
If any terrorists are out there, do like I do and pay the $39.95 for a cable modem. I'm sure that you can afford it.
*sigh*
Will they make up their minds? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, here's what I really don't get:
Does that guy honestly believe that getting into one Wi-Fi network can allow someone to bring down the entire Internet? And if he does, hm, maybe he should look at the original ARPA spec, compare it to the current topography of the 'net, and break up a few megacorps, hm?
Let's not forget that the people making these boneheaded pronouncements are rich white men who remember when color TV came out and they got one for their kids. The internet is a really scary unknown thing. They know it's incredibly powerful... and not much else.
But if they do manage to ban AOL from sending out those disks, I'm going to have to buy them a cookie.
Re:Will they make up their minds? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that if a terrorist broke into someone's house, tortured them until they gave out all their passwords, then the terrorists used the homeowner's internet account, then the terrorist can still be traced?
Yeahhhh...riiiight.
They don't even need to enter the country. The US has plenty of internet connections to the outside world. As for tracing the IP address, I seem to remember reading a news story about spammers using unallocated addresses to post their spam without being traced. Wide open 802.11 is hardly any more of a threat than anything else.
An interview with George W. Bush (Score:5, Funny)
Bush: Yes, well one of our other main concerns is airports.
Reporter: Airports?
Bush: Yes, airports. I spent millions of dollars researching previous terrorist attacks to see what they may do. It turns out, in every airline hijacking the terrorists went to an airport to board the plane. If we shut down the airports the terrorists can't get onto the planes so there will be no more airline hijackings.
Reporter: But how will people fly planes?
Bush: I am not at liberty to disclose that information at this present time for fear that terrorists may use it to their advantage.
Reporter: Ok... moving on, it says here that you've decided to enforce stricter laws on, I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, buying coats?
Bush: Yes, that's right, it seems that most suicide bombers hide explosives under some sort of coat. If the terrorists can't buy the coats, they can't hide the bombs, if they can't hide the bombs, they can't blow themselves up. It will eliminate the suicide bomber threat.
Reporter: But if we can't buy coats how will we keep warm in the winter?
Bush: See that's the beauty of it, there's this great thing I heard about called global warming. We're not going to need the coats because it's getting warmer, not colder!
Reporter: Ummmm, right, well anyway, what's this about putting restrictions on telephone use?
Bush: Ahhh, that's my greatest plan of all, see now if I can stop the terrorists from using telephones, cell phones, earphones, headphones, megaphones, all types of phones, they won't be able to talk to each other. If they can't talk to each other they can't plan things or make threats or do any of that nasty terrorist stuff.
Reporter: How are you planning on stopping terrorists from using phones?
Bush: Well I'm going to make it illegal under the new "Apple Pie and Baseball, God Bless America Act". Under this act, it's unamerican to use telephones, and it's illegal to be unamerican because terrorists are unamerican.
Reporter: But how bad would it be if we stopped using telephones? What if there's an emergency and you need to use a phone?
Bush: Emergency? What emergency? Are you hiding something? Are you a terrorist?
Reporter: That's the most rediculous thing I've heard, what makes you think I'm a terrorist?
Bush: AHA! Only a terrorist would say something like that! Seize her!
*At this time 5 secret service agents arrest the reporter, hold her in prison for weeks without telling her what she's done, or giving her a trial, or a lawyer*
Sad thing is that's not too unlikely
is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they trying to prevent? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's true, but stupid. By exactly their "logic", a terrorist or criminal could launch the same attack whether they connect through an unsecured wireless network or any other way. So unless they have a comprehensive strategy for making sure that terrorists can't get internet access *at all* then this doesn't accomplish anything. So either the administration doesn't realize this, or they do but they're using it as a smoke screen for some real reason, or it's being misreported. Frankly, I'd give about equal odds to all three.
Re:What are they trying to prevent? (Score:3, Funny)
By that logic, I see the gov't compelling AOL to stop mailing out those damned trial-installation CDs.
what's next? (Score:3, Funny)
Politicians don't read Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people here even know how their own representaives voted on Homeland Security? For the record, here is the official list of who in Congress voted for and against the creation of Homeland Security:
House Roll Call [house.gov]
Senate Roll Call [senate.gov]
(Interesting note, Senator Hollywood voted against. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.)
Is your senator in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your senator expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. (Not their federal office, snail mail doesn't get through there any more due to extended antrax checks.) They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
Is your congressman in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your congressman expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
But what if they did vote the way you wanted them to? WRITE THEM A LETTER OF THANK YOU! Everyone likes positive feedback from the people who control their job. If your senator was one of the nine dissenters, thank them for standing up for what is right! Include with the snail mail letter a check (not cash) for $100 to their campaign fund. Polticians speak two languages; votes and money. Speak your mind in both, in enough numbers, and they WILL listen.
While you're at it, write a short OpEd for the local newspaper. Short, sweet, to the point. Maybe they'll publish it, maybe they won't, but they definitely won't if you don't send it.
This is a democracy. Your government SPEAKS FOR YOU! Your representatives represent YOU. Remind them of it. Daily. Make them scared shitless of losing their job if they cross you. Their first thought when they wake up should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" Their last thought before going to bed should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" As a voter, it is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that those who claim to represent you actually do.
250,000 Slashdot voters is 500 times the difference in Florida in 2000, for a Presidential election. Imagine the sheer power of that electorate in congressional elections, if only it would get up off its collective ass and do something.
The Patriot Act of 2001 labels many so-called computer crimes "terrorism." I openly state, I am a terrorist. I seek to instill terror in the hearts of my government of trampling on my freedoms, or of voting against my will. I seek to make my government live in fear of me and my power over them. I seek to give George W. Bush nightmares of crossing me.
I am a voter. Are you?
The politicians do not understand (Score:3, Interesting)
Now suddenly they are being asked to do something other than obtain campaign donations and talk crap on TV. And they have not the slightest idea what to do. When a politican or a civil servant doesn't know what to do, what is the reaction? Find something that people are doing, and stop it. It is so much easier to ban something than to think of a positive action.
The posters who are making jokes about banning telephones and coats are not actually that far off the mark. In the Soviet Union, that dangerous instrument the typewriter required a licence, and all official typewriters had their fingerprint taken by the KGB so that any typed document could be traced to the original machine. As for photocopiers, each one had its KGB operative to control access. We now seem to be heading for a government policy of achieving basically the same thing electronically. In the long term, it is likely to be about as successful.
The big problem is, who is going to educate the politicians? Or do we need to find a way to replace them with younger, better educated ones who might actually have a clue about the modern world?
Pay phones next? (Score:5, Insightful)
This may sound like irrational conspiracy theory, but I actually think that this isn't about terrorism. It is a "foot in the water" test to slowly start regulating the net, and with it free speech.
Just my $.02...
--Jon
Re:Pay phones next? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have access to the Internet, you can use that to run a few script kiddie exploits, collect a few hundred (thousand) DDoS zombies, and launch a crippling attack.
Using a pay phone just gives you anonymity at the physical layer. By the time you're at the IP layer, you've signed on with an ISP, who presumably has some identifying information about you (though it could easily be stolen).
Using an open Wi-Fi network, you are completely anonymous. You are anonymous at the physical layer (could be hiding in an alley where no one can see you) and the link layer (MAC addresses can be changed). You have obtained an IP address with no form of authentication or authorization. When the feds trace back the attack (or the release of the worm, whatever crime it is), they are stopped cold at the operator of that Wi-Fi network. They can go no farther. (Assuming you've high-tailed it out of there by then.)
This fact is what they're wanting to do something about. Are we really prepared to give immunity to operators of free, anonymous, open Wi-Fi networks for crimes that people commit over them? If so, expect to see the number of prosecutions for electronic crimes drop to nearly nothing in the next few years, as criminals simply relocate their operations to take advantage of this anonymous Internet access everyone is so generously providing.
If you think spam and DDoS attacks were bad before, you haven't seen nothin' yet.
How can I convince the Goverment. (Score:5, Funny)
Not only WiFi! (Score:3, Insightful)
God bless America!
Smaller Government? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just killed a small wooded lot.
Just a thought, next time George and the boys offer up something this important, they really should think about making it a PDF and or gzip it.
Re:Hello? (Score:2)
Also...we should be free to be lazy.
Re:Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your admin isn't interested in security, then you've got a bad admin. Government regulations and threats of helping terrorists won't change that.
As far as the security of America goes, there are much more potent problems to deal with before worrying about terrorist's annonymous internet access. Our ports. Our porous borders. Our politicians.
So to sum up: HomSec may have a very valid point, but how they've addressed it is pathetic. There are more important things for the new department to be taking care of. If HomSec latches on to every little "security" problem in America, they'll get nowhere fast. If they choose big problems and start with those, the deparment might even make itself worthwhile.
Insecure wireless networks shouldn't be a matter of National Security, they should be a matter of personal security.
Regulation is bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulating things because you are afraid boogey men could possibly use them is a fools game. I could kill you with string cheese. That doesn't mean we should require a minimum standard of conduct on using string cheese.
In case you haven't noticed almost nobody actually follows speed limits on highways. It isn't safe following speed limits on highways. If you don't match the speed of traffic your endangering yourself and others. Laws that are largely ignored as the general public doesn't favor them are wasteful and leave loopholes for various assholes to take away more and more freedoms.
Re:Regulation is bad? inevitable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Subject to your ISP's acceptable use policy. The concept of acceptable use is much like speed limits; completely ignore them and eventually other isp's will shut you off.
About speed limits, first that depends a whole lot on where you are, on either coast of the US, yes folks typically exceed the posted limit by 10-15 mph, otoh in AZ/MX nearly all traffic travels 10-15 mph under the (70mph) limit, while in the midwest I've found that people pretty much mark the posted limits.
However, you're not allowed on the road at all without maintaining your vehicle to safety and emissions standards, and (except in a few states) getting tagged at 90MPH+ earns both a stiff fine and a nasty hike in insurance rates.
I for one have darned little patience for irresponsible morons running insecure networks / systems that are a haven for script kiddies. So while the particular name on the problem today is terrorism, I pretty much welcome actual enforcement of some minimum standards of competence.
Because tracking an attacker who's grabbed onto an open AP is effectively *far* more difficult than other avenues, sorry but I think moves in this direction are probably a pretty good idea.
But then if it were up to me MCSE's wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a live 'net connection ;-).
Re:Fine, run your open network... (Score:4, Insightful)
My local supermarket has a payphone out front. We need to hold the supermarket liable as a facillitator of any drug deals made over that phone. Don't forget to hold Home Depot liable for murder when someone gets bashed in the head with a brick.
Jeez, and your post got a 5?
-
Re:Fine, run your open network... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that I think of it, there's another person running an insecure network: The Postmaster General. Yeah, terrorists could send letters to each other and, if the USPS doesn't open, read, and monitor them, the Postmaster is just running an insecure network that could bring about more havoc and terrorism. I say that we've got to lock up that Postmaster person and save ourselves. Who needs the mail anyway?
Re:*COUGH* NOT WHAT I MEANT *COUGH* (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone steals my unlocked car and then decides to run over 50 people I'm responsible?
If I buy a hammer, and I leave it on my porch, and someone comes and takes it and kills my neighbors, I'm responsible??
Your logic is so faulty, hell I couldn't even strain spaghetti with it, the spaghetti would fall right through the holes.
Re:Fine, run your open network... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people are shortsighted greedy morons who wouldn't know the difference between their arse and their brain. Y'know the people who read tabloid newspapers and think all thats tuff is real. Land is an unlimited resource. At least as far as humans are likely to be concerned. There is more land on this one planet than is actually usable by the number of people the planet can sustain. Then there are lots of other planets we have the power to go to if we wanted to bother. Also we could easily create more 'land' by building large underwater or floating cities. Land is not an object so it is owned by the public.
Just because something belongs to the public doesn't mean you can't use it. It just means you can't deny others the use of it when your not using it. Y'know like a King that would punish peasents for killing a deer in his forest despite the fact he wasn't using the deer or the forest.
You and I are certainly not responsible for what our ancestors did but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for whatever actions we take that support what our ancestors did. Of course we have to have a place to live but you don't hafta put brick walls around your yard and curse the damn kids for their frisbees that float inside the fence.
Try not paying your taxes and see how public your land is. Your purchase price is little more than a rent deposit. Of course the only reason you have to pay for land is because people don't realize that if they felt like it they could just take what they needed from all that empty land not being used. A large enough group can take anything. No surprise about that. Forty big bikers with semiautomatic weapons can camp in my living room any damn time they want.
What are you not yet using your yard for that it'd be damaged by a child running across your grass?
Sure kids can play in their yard, a public park, etc. It doesn't mean I'm gonna get pissed off if they walk across my yard. I guess it's a reasonable use thing. If they aren't hurting me or damaging anything I'm using then I don't care if they use it.
You must have grown up somewhere nice. Where I grew up everyone played in the street. It was the only space big enough for most games and close enough to home that our parents didn't have to worry about gang fights, drug pushers, etc.
Anyway I think the original point was that it'd be silly to blame someone for not fencing their yard against criminal/terrorist activity. In the same way it's silly to blame someone for not fencing off their wireless network against criminal/terrorist activity. You shouldn't have to fence off either if it pleases you to leave them open.
You're WRONG. This has GREAT benefits for society (Score:2, Interesting)
You just don't get it.
Envision this scenario.
In the not too distant future, maybe 10 years from now, a company creates a wifi "web" technology. IT works like the internet. Except without WIRES. It works just like the internet. Someone connects to another local computer, or several of them, and they pass the data along from computer to computer till their reach their destination... JUST LIKE NOW, but without wires.
Except that with idiots creating laws like this, we will never have that internet utopia. It would be illegal to allow just ANY computer to connect to your "network" because the government doesn't want you to be able to allow people to connect to you if you don't know who they are.
Have you ever heard of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION? I consider this a freedom of association. I have the right to allow strangers into my house. I also have the right to allow strangers to go through my filing cabinets. And damnit, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW STRANGERS TO LOG ONTO THE NET through my pc!
The fact that terrorists could use this as a tool to help them out is NOT a good enough reason to crush this sort of technology. This sort of technology has WIDE reaching uses far GREATER than the risk involved could EVER be.
Imagine if this sort of legislation was enacted on the INTERNET back in the 1990's. That it was deemed dial up conenctions were too dangerous to allow to connect to the net, because it is too easy for someone to purchase a dial up account and connect from a large number of locations, and move about secretly.
We would HAVE NO INTERNET TODAY.
And we will have no WIFI INTERNET 2 tomorrow if such BACKWARD thinking people as yourself are allowed to create assinine laws like this.
There's a difference between intentionally limiting rights and establishing minimum standards of conduct. I suppose you guys never heard of speed limits on highways."
Your analogy is poor. High speed kills thousands upon thousands of people a year, and the benefit from it is very small. The risk to benefit ratio is very high.
The benefit from this EXTREMELY great. And the risk is REALLY SMALL. And shitting it down would do little to NOTHING to prevent the terrists from speaking secretly. So the risk to benefit ratio for this is really LOW.
LOW RISK, HIGH BENEFIT.
They MUST NOT do this. It would be ABSURD and make us fall even farther behind countries like Singapore where EVERYONE has a high speed net connection whereas most Americans are still on dialup. When they have WIFI internet that is FREE, with FREE BANDWIDTH, and we don't, it will hurt our economy, and JUST PLAIN SUCK.
Do I have this right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do I have this right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would anyone have to smuggle in a WMD to use against us? Aren't most of the world's weapons of mass destruction already here?
Sure, for now.. (Score:4, Interesting)
What you list above is an admirable way to protect the 'homeland' but it still misses the main problem. Check out Usama's letter [scoop.co.nz] on what his reasoning is. We were founded on the premise of religious tolerance. However, there are elements linked to the government through the current administration that are now just as bad as Usama himself. Extremist conservtives drunk with intolerance of any religion other than Christianity and set on enforcing their view of morality on the rest of the world - just like Usama. Only difference is that they have the worlds largest military and corporations to back it up.
When and if we correct this problem, will there be no or little reason to monitor our borders and ports - except maybe to keep others away from prosperity (which sounds odd if you think about it). But for now, I fear you're correct and we are already starting to see ridiculous examples of democracy gone awry [progressive.org].
Re:Do I have this right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Domestic terrorists pose a greater threat? (Score:3, Informative)
The Fed's consider domestic terrorists to be a greater threat than the one posed by the foreign terrorists?
Not a day goes by, without my server being an attacked by Nimda, or some hack attempt from a foreign land.
Nothing in their grand plan secures those foreign ISP's or those already hacked domestic PC's.
Or the million or so, H1-B's tech workers they left running amuck in the USA.
Makes you wonder, just who is running the Fed's funny farm?
Very very sad (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish all slashdot readers the best of luck. Freedom was great while it lasted. Enjoy it while you still can. May we all survive the coming tragedies and meet on the other side alive and free.
Re:Very very sad (Score:3, Interesting)
America in the past has risen up to say 'fsck you' to overwhelming repression and hopefully it will again.
The most insightful quote I ever heard was Sean Connery in Red October.... "A little revolution now and then is a good thing."
America needs a revolution, and needs one soon. I have no desire for my children live with the burden of pencil-pushers dictating their lives.
It is even more sad.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in school in the 80's people that valued freedom, our constitution, and wanted to protect both were labeled 'radical' and programmed to think it was wrong.. In reality we were no different then our founding fathers, and should have been labeled 'federalists' instead..
Now here we are, almost at the gates of oblivion.. Who among us will be the first person to stand up and say NO.
Re:In other news.... (Score:4, Funny)
As in:
reporting bb minitrue doubleplusungood refs wifi slashdot unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
Re:Sucks... but, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sucks... but, (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know who terrorists are until after they commit the crime.
Those 9/11 terrorists had access to telephones, internet and everything else, none of them needed to use open Wifi.
If anything, Arabs driving around with a scanner looking for an open WiFi connection would have alerted the authorities to a problem!
Notice they specifically go after Open WiFi, but they could have gone after free ISPs or Internet PayPhones.
(In Europe there are Internet public payphones, so I assume the US has them too.)
Nobody (outside of China) has gone after Internet Cafe's, nobody has even mentioned public Internet Payphones, only WiFi.
So this must be a commercial agenda aimed at closing Open WiFi connections.
Gotta be that COMETA consortium pushing this drivel.
Re:Liberals and their misinterpretation of Article (Score:3, Insightful)
The government is doing it's damndest to whip people into a patriotic fever so that they willingly give up their rights and not appear to be 'taking' them -
Patriot Act allows the government to detain people without legal counsel, without being accused of an actual crime, and many other things that go completely opposite of everything this country has tried to be so far to date. And lets not forget the Citizen Corps, where the government sets up tip hotlines for people to call in their neighbors for suspected dangerous activities.
You're right: 'homeland security' in the sense of the ability to protect our nation from threats (internal or external) is important, but at what point does it stop being a free state and start being some quasi fascist state? Mail is mail is mail. It's against the law for them to open a piece of snail-mail sent to someone unless they have good cause to do it (and good cause is not 'hey this guy has a middle eastern last name - lets check up on him'), so why the fuck should email be any different?
Honestly the answer to that one is simple: because they can and no one will know it. Sniffing packets and logging traffic is a lot easier than searching through mail without making it look tampered - that doesn't make it any less a piece of mail that is personal and NOT something they should stick their nose in without some damn good reason.
Anyway, there's my counter rant and not really meant to be a flame aside from the first paragraph.