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."
How much? (Score:2, Interesting)
IOUC $15,000,000,000 (Score:2)
Keep yer cool (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the second anti-RMS comment I've had to respond to in the past couple hours (first one [slashdot.org]).
What the heck does this have to do with RMS? RMS talks about freedom of software. This isn't even related to him in the slightest.
If you read the article, you'd see that the National Infrastructure Advisory Council "advises the President of the United States on the
security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting
other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance, transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government
services." And while RMS might have feelings about this, software Freedom doesn't come in to play.
I really wish bashing RMS wasn't so trendy on
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:2)
For starters, eliminating over/underrated (or at least passing them to M2), and making moderators accountable (let people see who has been moderating their posts) would be appreciated.
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:1)
If you want to see the government start using open-source software, then rms is the last person you want near those discussions. The folks in the legislature will not tolerate his shenanigans for very long...
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:2)
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:2)
But I am a nutcase..... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Keep yer cool (Score:2)
The icing on the cake is, of course: "Perhaps we would better let it be known what we desire if we lay prostrate before his excellency and humbly beg for his mercy."
OT msg to Loki (Score:2)
Are you aware of the Free State Project [freestateproject.org]?
my hopes... (Score:3, Informative)
Please let there be some tattered shred of freedom to hang onto...it's terrible about 911 but there have been worse death counts in history with no enemy to fight...the "Death Fog" in London (1952?) comes to mind.
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.
Re:my hopes... (Score:2)
1) About 12,000 people died due to London's "Death Fog" of 1952.
2) The term "Smog" was coined much later than 1952, and most all reference materials refer to the 1952 incident as a "Death" or "Killer" fog.
3) The factories and buses were not an "enemy"--they did not "plan" an attack. Indeed, it was the common practice of burning cheap, soft coal (later outlawed) for warmth in the unusually cold winter that exacerbated the death count. Once again, no premeditative enemy.
To somehow compare a plague, which often takes many months to run its cycle, to the high, rapid death counts of 911 and the "Death Fog" does not seem an appropriate example at all.
Securing Cyberspace (Score:1)
(Does National and Internet go together... I smell fish!)
Re:Securing Cyberspace (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Securing Cyberspace (Score:2)
opinions: (Score:5, Funny)
Linux: Leave cyberspace alone.
Conclusion? "Cyberspace" isn't under anyone's control because it can't be bought, sold, or bribed.
U.S. law on the other hand, can be bought and sold like trading cards.
lol (Score:2)
Re:opinions: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Centralized exchanges (Score:1)
Re:Centralized exchanges (Score:2)
Military actions tend to lack the longstanding effectiveness of financial ones.
Its my impression that the market and consolidation within the telecom industry has created a large amount of Internet backbone centralization over the years. Thus, the worry over Worldcom.
GGardner's corollary to Godwin's law (Score:5, Funny)
I would like to propose a corollary to Godwin's law: In any online thread, any mention about how the Internet was designed to survive nuclear attack immediately terminates that thread.
Re:GGardner's corollary to Godwin's law (Score:5, Funny)
550 THREADTERM (nuclear)
223 DETECT THREADTERM (nuclear)
224 ACK THREADTERM (nuclear)
227 REROUTING TO ALTERNATE THREAD SERVER
Re:Gardner's corollary to Godwin's law (Score:2)
Interesting though, how often the cannard gets repeated (even by me), and how it appears not be be completely true. Look how that fire in the tunnel in the N.E. slowed down MAE East and connections through them. It should have re-routed (and did, but not very well according to reports I read) and folk shouldn't have noticed. They did notice. Point being that perhaps re-routing around major damage isn't working as well as could be hoped?
designed to survive nuclear attack (Score:2)
*Ahem* (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet is not on American soil and will never belong to any goverment, neither will you ever have the jurisdiction to secure it.
Trying to Secure the internet is futile. The internet was never created to be regulated or controlled rather, allowed to evolve free of the contraints of the non-virtual world.
So... I suggest the following.
1 - Remove your heads from your asses.
2 - Concentrate on your own Nation's concerns, like the economy, and social issues.
3 - Stop invading not only your own citizen privacy but the rest of the worlds.
Thankyou for your time.
Re:*Ahem* (Score:4, Insightful)
What it has become in recent years is certainly quite different from what the inventors intended.
Re:*Ahem* (Score:1)
Re:*Ahem* (Score:2)
Maybe you should read this: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html [politechbot.com]
No More Fscking Gore Bashings (Score:4, Informative)
The following is from Vint Cerf, if you don't know who he is then you really shouldn't have ever bashed gore:
"As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation."
Re:*Ahem* (Score:2)
> States Department of Defense.
Actually that is not true.
The government created a network called Arpanet, which they deemed not quite what they were looking for, and so they sold it off. Upon selling it to comercial interests, it was called the Internet.
So no, the government only created the network that was to become the Internet. What they actually created was the Arpanet.
The point is, they gave it away.
They sold it to comercial companys and at that moment sold their right to have any say so what so ever about what was to happen to it.
If they cared so much for it, they should have kept it to themselfs or ran it themselfs, in which case the Internet would not exist, we would be using the Arpanet.
Wrongo. (Score:2)
> The internet was created by the United
> States Department of Defense.
Actually that is not true.
NO! Actually, that is true. The origin of something is the origin. You CANNOT CHANGE THAT. Yes, it was sold off. But its origin is fact. The beginnings of the internet were created by the US military, trying to split hairs on when it became a different type of network is ridiculous.
Stop trying to put an anti-US spin on everything, you nutters.
I don't hate your differences as much as trying revisionist history, so shut the hell up.
Re:Wrongo. (Score:2)
> revisionist history, so shut the hell up.
When the subject is "we created it so we get to say what is done with it" and the fact is they created it and sold it off, they have no say so, no matter what you say.
If you create anything, and fucking SELL IT, you lose the right to say what can and cant be done with it in any nation in the world.
Try joining the rules of our planet for a change
Re:Wrongo. (Score:2)
Yes.
The only law in place that prevents something is copyright, which prevents me giving out copys of your software to others without your permission and whatnot.
If i use your software to generate output, i can do whatever i please with that output.
Copyright does not apply to things such as networks or the Internet specifically, so it doesnt even have that.
The Internet is a specific thing (granted it changes all the time, but it is still a cluster of computers)
As to the parents parents subject i was replying to, this is like Ford creating a car, selling it to you, and later saying that you can only use it in certain ways.
Oh wow, doesnt that sound familiar?
Slashdot users bitch left and right when a company sells an item (copyright not withstanding) and then later try to say what you can and cant do with it.
The internet is no more under copyright than a cuecat from radioshack or an iopener.
Re:*Ahem* (Score:3, Informative)
1 - Remove your heads from your asses.
That is asking WAYYYYY too much from any of our government officials.
The only person in government that I had ANY respect for was Gov. Jesse Ventura. he was the most HONEST politician this country has had in over 100 years. and the only one with balls and knows how to use them...
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.
Plain economics should derail it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isnt this basically impossible? First off, the bandwidth requirements alone would make the process unfeasable. The whole reason the internet is a called a network and not a bus is that the information is distributed. This distribution is what makes the internet possible. Funneling all the information into centralized locations would violate the network topology.
Next, many ISPs are not registered or licenced to be ISPs. What defines an ISP? Does my wi-fi count? Policing this would a complete farce, especially with freedom advocates taking every opportunity to bypass and befuddle the law.
Next, any terrorists/criminal would start using (if they are not already using) at least simple encryption which would not generally be detectible by monitoring bots. The amount of effort to avoid even the most sophisticated monitoring would be quite small.
Also, if all this data were stored up in some central location, wouldnt that be the best place for hackers to crack to get vast amounts of info? Has anyone ever made an uncrackable system connected to the public networks?
Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (Score:2)
And as far as the "Keeping your eggs in one basket" thing, that's been done [securityfocus.com], from the inside yet.
Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (Score:2)
Great. No more e-mail from the U.S. for me. Oh well, not really a loss, since I'm European.
So, fellow Europeans and non-USians, care to set up a global network of our own? Or should we just cut those crummy trans atlantic and pacific cables so they really _are_ isolated.
(yes, this is tongue somewhat planted in cheek. get over it)
There *is* no backbone (Score:5, Informative)
An important part of network design is understanding what traffic is going to "nearby" locations, and designing things so most traffic stays local and doesn't use expensive or scarce facilities - things like putting big hulking routers in San Francisco and San Jose so traffic between Silicon Valley companies stays in the South Bay and Multimedia Gulch companies stays in the City without needing to use too much bandwidth around the Bay, much less sending copies of all of it on three-part-carbon forms to NSA's Fort Meade, Ashcroft's J. Edgar Hoover building, and Dick Cheney's stockbroker before delivering it.
That doesn't mean that there weren't rumors from reputable sources a few years ago about active wiretaps on MAE-West sending extra copies of some packets to somebody else, or that the Russian renamed-KGB's 1998ish SORM [dfn.org] (another URL) [libertarium.ru] project didn't try to force Russian ISPs to build a full-sized wiretap feed to them (at the ISPs' expense, of course) or that there aren't Eurocrats [heise.de] trying to do the same thing in their countries today. And then there's the whole Echelon Wiretapping System [echelonwatch.org]. But it's still impractical for them to force ISPs to deliver everything everybody's reading or emailing, though I'll be happy to send them copies of most of my spam if they'd like.
On the other hand, the publicly-accessible parts of the web aren't all that big. The Wayback Machine [archive.org] has a copy of all of it, with reasonable samples going back a long time, and Google [google.com] and the other search engines crawl it periodically, and AllTheWeb.com [alltheweb.com] presumably claims to have All The Web.
Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isnt this plan an impossible boondoggle? (Score:2, Interesting)
And by the way, what would happen if you DoS attacked this central uber server? If all traffic is routed through it, wouldn't that in theory turn the internet, or at least the portion controled (having traffic flow through it) by it, turn off?
To secure the national infrastructure... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:To secure the national infrastructure... (Score:2)
Since Windows' creator, Microsoft, has shown themselves incapable of making progress in this regard even after a year's concerted effort, why would anyone think the U.S. government stands a chance?
Such D.O.S. attacks as the parent post mentions are common, even if not visible, and will likely continue to be.
mirror (Score:2, Interesting)
Bureau of Industry and Security
National Infrastructure Advisory Council; Notice of Open Meeting
The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet on
Wednesday, January 8, 2003, from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m. EST. The meeting,
which will be held telephonically, will be open to the public. Members
of the public interested in attending by telephone should call (toll
free) 1-899-7785 or (toll) 1-913-312-4169 and, when prompted, enter
pass code 1468517.
The Council advises the President of the United States on the
security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting
other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance,
transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government
services. At this meeting, the Council will continue its deliberations
on comments to be delivered to President Bush concerning the draft
National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.
Agenda
I. Opening of meeting and roll call: John Tritak, Director, Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office/Designated Federal Officer, NIAC
II. Opening remarks: Richard Clarke, Special Advisor to the President
for Cyperspace Security/Executive Director, NIAC; Richard Davidson,
Chairman, NIAC; and John Chambers, Vice Chairman, NIAC
III. Presentation of draft Comments document: Mr. Davidson
IV. Discussion and adoption of Comments: NIAC Members
V. Discussion of next steps/timeline for publication and delivery of
document: NIAC Members
VI. Adjournment
Written comments may be submitted at any time before or after the
meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation
materials to Council members, the Council suggests that presenters
forward the public presentation materials, ten days prior to the
meeting date, to the following address: Ms. Wanda Rose, Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 6095, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For more information contact Wanda Rose on (202) 482-7481.
Dated: December 19, 2002.
Eric T. Werner,
Council Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 02-32435 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
Anyone planning on recording this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Should be simple enough with some simple serial software, a modem, and some low-end sound recording software?
yes/no? =)
Good move by gov't (Score:3, Informative)
It's nice to see they also want to work with a strong public/private partnership, not solely one with private organizations. I'll try and be listening in for sure!
Read this Link & then comment (Score:1)
Re:Good move by gov't ..just in two hours... (Score:2)
sounds ike a bullshit meeting to me.
Over heard at the meeting... (Score:5, Funny)
"There really is only one way to secure cyberspace as we know it. We need to create in secret an army of clones to protect us from all of our enemies."
-AZ Sen. James Palpatine (D)
reposted comment (Score:2)
Didn't find it. (Score:2)
Jealous, are we?
Slashdot effect? (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot effect? (Score:1)
Just think of the Slashdot effect as a BIG conference call, with the unwitting host acting as a hub for all the callers...
I claim... (Score:1, Funny)
I claim ze internet in ze name of Fronce! Viva La Fronce!
[I'm aware that this is a US initiative. France just sounded funnier.]woah, slow the paranoia just a little (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Banks et. al. run on private networks (Score:2)
We are all on one big network, and for all intensive purposes, it is the internet. Banks, Businesses, and just about everybody with a telco grade circuit runs Frame Relay or ATM, on top of the various telco's networks.
We can only hope that they don't take this too seriously, because literly, if they wanted to protect the real world from cyber space, then it is time to send the gastapo with wire cutters to cut everybody's phone, cable, and power connection to send us back into the stone age. What people in political circles fail to realise is that the internet is not just US Centric, it is global, and what laws they put into effect have repercussions all over the world.
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.
Re:You missed the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Backbone providers in some cases have their own fiber, but most of the time, it's the telco that has the fiber, because it was cheap for them to put it in (goverment paid for it to be put in).
In all honesty, your ranting is not what is necessary to convince members of our goverment, nor is stats of the past. What is needed is a convincing, why/why not argument. Reality is, that what is needed is that we need to reform things from inside the goverment outward, so what we must do is direct this agency to the reality, and try to convince them that they can't really do anything for the private sector, but they have things that they can do for the goverment, that will filter into the private sector and encourage good, responsable behaviour regarding technology.
Re:You missed the point (Score:2)
Backbone providers typically lease their fibre from larger providers, including certain telcos. Other large companies actually own their own fibre (I believe it's IBM that has such fibre running across northern Canada to provide a physically seperate link from their main fibre in the US.)
Most telcos lease their fibre, too. Only a few big providers like AT&T, MCI, and a few others actually own their fibre. (There are a couple companies that run huge cross-US fibre, but I can't remember the name off hand. One might be Inktomi, but that doesn't sound right for some reason.)
My rant was never intended to change the way the government acts, but to respond to the poster who claimed the Slashdot crowd is "overreacting." I really don't believe anything short of revolution will fix the governments in the US or Canada anymore, because they just don't give a damn what thinking citizens want. They just want their "share" of the tax trough, or else get trampled by the trough-feeders if they do try to support the rights and wishes of the people.
I don't advocate violence, but it is really going to take a major upheaval to wake the deadbeats in Washington and Ottawa up.
Re:You missed the point (Score:2)
Re:You missed the point (Score:2)
If the US system produces such "major upheavals" at election time, how can you explain humanoids like Hollings? Was there truly no one better deserving of the people's vote than these sellouts?
Most Canadians have no illusion that things will change after an election. A new party will come in, a few new faces will get key posts, the "advisors" and civil servants will continue making most of the decisions on behalf of the talking heads who get the media coverage, and the government will continue stealing income through taxes until Canada becomes a third-world nation. (Hell, it's damned close already. Over 60% of my university associates are programmers, teachers, union members, etc. They've also had to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford to live on the half of their salary the government "lets" them keep.)
I've really lost hope that anything short of another revolution has any hope of getting their attention. EMails? They don't read them. Snail mail? Staff read and discard them, except for a choice few that can provide a sound bite. TV? Can't afford it, if you can even find a network that is willing to present dissenting views. Print? Same issue as TV, except for the cost.
Want real change? Hire an assasin. Seriously. Some fringe group of lunatics stating their case and then taking out a few key political figures is probably the only thing that will wake those in power to the fact that the people are the nation, and that pissing them off decade after decade is a really bad thing to do.
(No, I don't advocate violence. I'm just at a loss as to what can be done to save our nations from our politicians/corporations and get them back to serving the people.)
Re:You missed the point (Score:2)
Is that you Jim Bell [antioffline.com]? :-)
I'm just at a loss as to what can be done to save our nations from our politicians/corporations and get them back to serving the people.
The best answer I've got is: hold on just a few more painful decades for the technology revolution (which I needn't name) that will make nations irrelevant.
--
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Because you disagree about the terrorism comment, and I didn't spend a couple days preparing a research paper to prove my point with quotes and citations, all other points are are to be taken with a grain of salt?
9/11 is a sensitive topic for Americans, and I understand that. But it does not negate the fact that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of terrorist attacks world wide each month througout the mideast, asia, and europe. You just don't hear about it because CNN didn't have cameras there, and even if they did it would have been a footnote filler item unless an American died.
The US, Mexico, and Canada produce at least 90% of the marijuana consumed in North America. Or did you translate "North America" as "US", forgetting that Mexico and Canada are on this same continent?
Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Score:2)
I don't know what rock you crawled out from under, but if you plan to defend your nation with anything *but* assault weapons and handguns, then you can move to another nation and try to defend it with whatever rocks and sticks whiny liberal jackasses like you think constitute "arms".
Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Score:2)
The military and police have those weapons, as approved by the constitution. You will never convince me that a 30-round assault rifle (automatic or not) has any business anywhere except in the military, the police, or a licensed, registered collector. By the time anyone gets close enough to US soil for you to use your "personal protection" weapons, the war is already lost.
If the trillions of dollars worth of military personnel, nukes, missiles, air craft, naval armadas, subs, and satellites aren't enough to keep out "the enemy", what makes you think some guy with an assault rifle is going to make a damned bit of difference?
Don't get me wrong -- I like guns. Target shooting with a Sig is an absolute gas, venison brought down by a skilled hunter is damned tasty, and I've used them many times for butchering pigs or cattle. I just think they have their uses and their place, and assault rifles in the home isn't one of them.
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.
Thank you (Score:2)
For a clear and informed argument. Most of the pro-gun people I've run into tend to be fringe lunatics that I wouldn't trust with a butter knife, much less an assault rifle.
I still think it's over before your home armoury can do any good. *g*
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
I know enough about nuclear fission to hack together a nuclear device if I had the materials and patience, but that doesn't mean I am (or should) be trusted to do so.
What has the "composition" of an assault rifle got to do with whether someone can be trusted with them? I don't give a rats ass what kind of stock it has, what the barrel length is, or what calibre it is -- the distinguishing feature of an assault rifle is large clip capacity, maneuverability, and rapid fire capabilities (Yes, I know it takes all of 20 minutes for someone who knows what they are doing to make them fully automatic, often without even replacing parts.)
The only purpose of such weapons is killing people, which is a responsibility that should be reserved for the police and military (not that they're always trustworthy, either.) Any "hunter" who needs more than two shots to take down a deer should not be in the field with a high powered rifle of any kind (they're missing the target more often than not -- always a bad thing with firearms.)
The fact that a fringe lunatic has learned how to strip and reassemble their weapon in 30 seconds blindfolded does not make them trustworthy. It just means they are educated fringe lunatics with guns.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Score:2)
OK then, so how did these weapons protect you from the corrupt and freedom bashing stuff going on in Washington? I'm not trolling, I genuinely believe that that part of the constitution is completely outdated. Owning a gun may have protected your freedom in the old west, but nowadays you'll just end up like the people in Waco should you decide to take up arms.
Most successful revolts/revolutions and protests have been non-violent, certainally in recent times anyway.
Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Score:2)
And suppose you believe the government the government has tripped that failsafe. What are you going to do? Start shooting cops? Shoot the president? After gunning you down or capturing and executing you the government would simply start a propoganda campaign against you and everyone who shared your opinions. Your life would end, and you would provide them the perfect excuse to hunt down everyone else who shared your opinions. In short you would become the next Al Queda. They've even got the perfect term to use in any propoganda war they choose to start, and use it atleast 13 times in every sentence when they're trying to convince the lemmings (read: majority) in this country that something is a Good Idea, you know the term I mean. The fact is your gun doesn't protect jackshit, and we're at their mercy if they ever decide democracy went out of style. The true failsafe is that there are a whole lot of people in positions of power and it would take the colaboration and secrecy of an enormous number of them to orchestrate any sort of legal or organized undermining of the goverment (remind anyone else of political parties?). Think of the government as a kind of internet: a few nodes go bad now and then, hopefully we can still route around them, and they don't take too many others down with them.
And for all the "external enemy" types: The constitution was written in a time before stategic aerial bombardment, thermonuclear weapons, ICBMs, and MIRVs. Anyone without military training and sophisticated weapons equipment can't make a damned bit of difference in a real war against a real military. When the constitution was written, they could. I challenge you to defend yourself against an incoming cruise missile with your assault rifle. Don't think the enemy will be stupid enough to send in troops for you to whack until he's glassed your city one or twice from several thousand miles away.
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.
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:Getting out of this screwed up country?... (Score:2)
Headed back to the Great White North until things settle down. Economy on both sides sucks right now, but the fam is freezing their butts of right now, so I figure I might as well join them until I find the next contract.
Realistically both the US and Canada have plenty of problems, but this whole police-state thing I see happening really has me wanting to be just about anywhere but here until things settle down.
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.
federal register tips (Score:3, Informative)
Profit! (Score:1)
Step 2: Create a "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace".
Step 3: Centralize the Internet.
Step 4: ? (InterNIC)
Step 5: Profit!
They are clueless (Score:1)
Toll Free??? (Score:1)
Huh?????
It's very simple... (Score:5, Funny)
also all good citizens will get good clean approve advertisments every time they log in....
Secure CyberSex-huh? (Score:1)
now it probably will get ignored..
Government's definition of "Secure". (Score:5, Funny)
- The Air Force's definition is "Write a purchase order to buy one."
- The Navy's definition is "Tie it down so it doesn't roll or bounce around."
- The Marines' definition is "Machine-gun it and post an armed guard once you're sure they're all dead."
They've already got their own Milnet, so they're not trying for the Air Force approach....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.
Trading Freedom for Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom and Safety (Score:2, Interesting)
Benjamin franklin.
I admire and respect the US founding fathers, something not many Englishmen will admit to, they stood for something above the petty power politics and bowing down before powerful men.
Looks like your current President and his administration have forgotten if indeed they ever understood how important those principals are.
A modest Proposal (Score:2)
First Reschedule
This is important stuff. It neads to be covered on CNN, CSPAN, TECH TV, and PBS.
Folks this is Bill of Rights material we are talking about, not some local option sales tax, or exemption of Church Vehicles from registration fees.
The future of every person, every election, and every human rights effort in the United States and possibly the world rests in the balance.
The removal of Ma Bell from monopoly status was an admission by the government, that concentration of power for commerce or monitoring is a bad thing (from a bill of rights view).
The bogus initiative to 'secure' cyberspace has nothing to do with rights, freedom, or liberty and exceeds the constitutuional authority of the Federal Government.
There are no provisions, allowances, or safeguards to insure any of the requirements of due process.
In short, I'll repeat what I said before, Stalin would have loved this.
Kinda bass-ackwards. (Score:2)
If it was China (Score:2, Interesting)
Time for Internet II (Score:2)
The increased demand will help private industry adopt it as well. And if the networks themselve are different than the current ones, that is good as well. Light up some dark fiber.
Again, the use the original DOD Internet as the model.
Re:this is big.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shhhh! Don't tell the secret. (Score:1)
You'd think so... (Score:2, Insightful)