Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Privacy United States Government Security Politics

Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer 439

aicrules writes "Despite the constant prattle of privacy groups and individual privacy advocated, according to a poll reported on by CNN most Americans want the government to be heavily involved in securing the Internet. They want to eat their cake too, though, as those polled also don't trust the governmental bodies charged with such security. They also found that more people trust Microsoft with security. From the article, 'I don't think the public knows what it wants Congress to do, but it wants Congress to do something,...They don't have a lot of confidence that Congress will do the right thing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer

Comments Filter:
  • blurb is misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) < minus cat> on Friday June 17, 2005 @02:58PM (#12844859) Journal

    From the post:

    They also found that more people trust Microsoft with security.

    There is nothing in the actual article to even suggest/support this thesis... (ignoring for the moment the thesis is not well-formed... e.g., "more people than what?, than before?")

    The closest thing I can find from the article says:

    The FBI scored more favorably among Internet users in the survey but still lower than technology companies, such as Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc.

    I don't think that is the same as "more people trust Microsoft...".

  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @03:05PM (#12844977)
    When you look at some of the members[1] of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, you see names like McAfee and Symantec. Indeed, it is these companies best financial interests for security to be mandated. Of course they want legislation that demands that each and every computer on the Internet runs their antivirus or firewall software. And of course their surveys will suggest that that's what people want.

    [1] ist/ []
  • Spin (Score:2, Informative)

    by fark_fan ( 892931 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @03:34PM (#12845401)
    Could the propaganda machine known as CNN be any less obvious? This is disgusting. The majority of Americans want the Internet policed just as much as they want their beautiful wives groped in an airport security screening.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17, 2005 @06:02PM (#12847049)
    I would argue that the police at any level don't enforce the law - they clean up the messes that happen when the law is broken.

    Actually, just last night at 2 am some random guy who was clearly not right mentally (maybe drugs, maybe something more) came up to the bedroom window of my ground floor apartment and started professing his love for some random girl (mostly in Spanish) and also throwing a in few comments about God and a few "I'm going kill you homie".

    Now, I suppose there are a number of ways I could have dealt with it by myself. If I had a gun, I could have shot him in the head (his body was blocked by the wall) and likely killed him or I could have just attacked him with the hammer I had laying around. Or, I could also have just threatened him but, if he had a gun, then I could have ended up dead myself.

    As it was, I went in the other room and called the police and they arrived in a few minutes (literally) and handcuffed the guy and hauled him away. Now, maybe he'll come back tonight and I'll wish I had shot and killed him but, on the whole, I'm rather glad I'm not spending the day explaining to the police (and the guy's family) why I thought it was necessary to kill him.

    Now, part of he reason that calling the police worked is because I live a block away from the police station. If I lived 20 miles from the nearest police station then the gun option might have been more necessary. Along those lines, if some guy living way out in the boonies in Texas wants a gun for protection, it sort of seems to make sense but, this notion that everyone should have a gun and take "responsibility" for dealing with situations themselves seems to be a substantial over-generalization.

  • by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @06:05PM (#12847063)
    That's really common. I've worked about 20 elections so far, and at primaries you constantly get people wanting to have one box or lever so they can vote for the party without having to do so much work as punch six or eight of them itty bitty lil' boxes.
    When both parties have primaries on the same ballot, I always get asked why we didn't just set up one machine just for Republicans and one just for Democrats. When only one party offers a primary, there's always at least one person who claims I'm part of some sort of conspiracy to keep the other party from having one, or somehow stop their candidate from getting votes.
    In presidential primaries, there's always 10 or so people who talk like they think their candidate will be President that night, and not just their party's nominee.
    At general elections, you get people who want to vote for one presidential candidate, and another party's vice-president - people who want to vote directly for president and not for the electors, and people who want to vote by party when it's not a primary at all, and demand I take all those independant's names off the lists so they can find their party easier.
    When we close for the evening, our machines print an extra copy of the totals, which we post at the polling place door for the press to read if they want to check on separate precinct's results. I've had press people complain that I didn't print out one strip with all the machine's totals instead, and people want me to print them another copy, and mail it to them before their paper's deadline (Yeah, I can tell you at 2:30 PM what the total will be at 8 PM, and the time traveling mailmen will get it to you the day before I post it, Um-hum.).
    I've had people call the location, asking me to delay sombody else so they could vote first, or stop their wife from canceling their vote (usually they get connected to a high school secretary or sombeody like that, because, thank God, they can't figure out how to get through to the poll workers directly).
    I've never had a candidate hang around inside the polling place when they didn't have a right to be there, but I have had candidates come in to vote at their home precinct, carefully follow all the rules, and someone demand I throw them out. It's amazing how many people think that anyone running for office isn't allowed to vote.

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama