U.S. Tries To Open Up Web Access To China 23
An anonymous reader writes "CNET has a story about the U.S. funding software that will thwart firewall technology in China. It seems funny to me that while the U.S. tries to limit our access they are trying to open up China's. I wonder if I could use this technology in Michigan?" The agency funding the software is the International Broadcasting Bureau, an "independent federal government entity."
Cute. (Score:3, Funny)
Are we going to do the same to China's 'net infrastructure? I'd love to see the DoD try to stuff an M1A1 Abhrams and six dozen marines through a 1 gigabit pipe.
Next thing you know, the White House will start publishing press releases stating that China is a threat for producing w32.* worms.
Re:Cute. (Score:2)
Re:Cute. (Score:2)
Re:Cute. (Score:2)
Well, as Howie Day says [howiefan.com]:
Just gotta upgrade the trans-pacific cable to fibber optick [sic] and we'll be all set.
China's Great Firewall (Score:4, Interesting)
If we had decent broadband I might have tried tunneling an x session over the Pacific Ocean, but I bet it'd require too much bandwidth.
Re:China's Great Firewall (Score:1)
Curious that... (Score:1)
Here's hoping that China retaliates... (Score:3, Funny)
DMCA violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because government employees or agents are committing the felonies does not make them legal, although it does reduce the likelihood of prosecution. But that's what [runaway] Grand Juries are for!
Re:DMCA violation? (Score:2)
Uh, last I knew China wasn't part of the US....
Re:DMCA violation? (Score:1)
Re:DMCA violation? (Score:2)
Firstly: IANAL
True the law doesn't distinguish where the attacked systems are located. However, neither do other laws distinguish that it matters where a murder happens. Yet if I murder somebody in Japan, the US can't prosecute me because the US has no jurisdiction in Japan. That's why extradition treaties exist....
There has to be a point of acce
Re:DMCA violation? (Score:2)
Sounds like Peek-A-Booty? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'd prefer to see is the US Gov donate money to the Peek-A-Booty project, which is open and written by some fine hackers (in the positive sense of the word) instead of building it from scratch.
I trust things when I can get source. NSA Linux (now SELinux) was denounced originally because it was done partly by the NSA, but it included full source and now is an accepted valid way to secure a linux box. The article doesn't seem to indicate that their peek-a-booty-like software will be open, so how can you trust it as much? Are you sure you're getting the actual Internet content, or just a US-propagandized version
" U.S. tries to limit our access" (Score:2)
Re:" U.S. tries to limit our access" (Score:2)
The software the article is talking about: OpenSA (Score:2)
Unfortunately, OpenSA is Windows-only and isn't really very open-source friendly. Some of the source code is available for older versions. CGIProxy, the "other half" of Peacefire.org's firewall-bustin' solution, is a perl program and thus "open source", but the licensing is somewhat muddled: http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/faq.html#q 9
The good news is that if you alread
Official USG policy, we don't pick on China.. (Score:1)
Re:Official USG policy, we don't pick on China.. (Score:2)
Parents: Rhetoric can be fun to use, but please, be careful. Don't let it get into the hands of children.
The whole thing can be summed up in 1 word! (Score:2)
Go Calculate something [webcalc.net]