View Poll Results: Vietnam again?
- 11. You may not vote on this poll
dont really care
September 8th, 2002, 05:56 AM
Nat'l Cyberprotection Plan (Outline)
You might have to register to read the whole story, but here's a peek at the future. Not real earth-shaking, but interesting nonetheless...
September 8th, 2002, 05:32 PM
A foot in the door
I think the govt's ideas are fine if that was ALL they would do. I think we all know Federal intrusion wouldn't end there. Our govt, any govt in fact, cannot tolerate something over which they haven't total control.
Think back to the early days of the Internet and look at it today. Like it or not, it's less free than it once was. Using a rather hackneyed comparison that I've heard elsewhere, in the mid 90's the Internet was the Frontier -- wide open, freewheeling and almost anything goes. Now, that Frontier openness is nearing the end. It's becoming settled, and with settlement things change. Law is catching up; the open, unfettered Cow towns are facing the taming hand of the marshal. It's already happened in other countries.
What is being proposed is only the beginning. Government has been searching for years for a way to impose their control. Terrorism obviously didn't work, so now they're looking at the security angle. Believe me, if they move in, it will only be worse. It's the last "outpost" of freedom, and they can't stand it. Inevitably, if the laws pass next will come a surcharge to support their intrusion. Online costs will be the first to increase. After that, will come other restrictions.
September 8th, 2002, 05:54 PM
...Dang, Chuck56, you sound like someone who might have some insight into how laws get born, progress, grow and, in the hands of some carbon-based enforcement units, may be used to exert previously unthought-of power over the subjects.... Maybe, like, some realtime on-the-street experience?????
One of my old dusty dog-eared books tells how back in the dark ages it was a death-sentence for any peasant who learned how to read and the king found out. Only the kings and other authorized personnel were allowed to know how to read.
Kind of reminds some of my friends about the current communication-security discussions, access to effective encryption capabilities... or so they say.........................
September 8th, 2002, 08:21 PM
Well, I'm no insider, but I did
25 yrs on the street as a cop. If you keep your ears open, you hear things the brass talk about. Trust me, the high minded, we're only here to protect you crap you might hear spouted on the Cops TV show isn't the way it is. It's about power. All government is about power and control.
How many police agencies at whatever level, whether local, county, state, or federal have you ever heard, if a new law is proposed, say it isn't needed? The Internet is still relatively free, but things WILL change. They'll change because of that freedom. Freedom is a word bandied about a lot, especially lately. Freedom scares governments. Freedom means no control to them, and I firmly believe Orwell's 1984 is a widely read book in Washington.
You've heard it asked: How much are you willing to surrender so "we" can do a better job? It doesn't make any difference. Surrendering any liberty is a mistake. They don't need to restrict anything to do what's necessary. Like new gun laws do nothing but restrict honest people's rights, laws reducing the least of our liberties only succeed in making us less free.
Hell, they're already randomly flagging emails; they've tried and will continue to try to gain master keys for encrypted emails. Anybody using encryption is bound to be a criminal, so they need to read them. If you aren't dishonest, why would you try to hide what you write? This is their logic.
Visit a right/left wing site and do you really believe a flag of some kind doesn't alert some LE agency? You've got to be a terrorist to want to check out a militia, KKK, nazi, or similar site.
It's already being done. They've just decided it's time to get the laws allowing them to do it.
September 9th, 2002, 05:37 AM
Hmm. Registration needed. Mind quoting the article? :/ I'd rather not leave my personal (real or fake) data lying around if I can help it.
[HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency
September 9th, 2002, 06:29 AM
no doubt. we are loathe to register to a site we, no doubt, will never return to anyways.
We are sure its a most interesting article but it should not require registration for us just to review it.
September 9th, 2002, 06:41 AM
Taken from http://www.nandotimes.com/technology...-4171688c.html
I registered so the rest of you don't have to...
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (September 6, 2002 10:13 p.m. EDT) - The Bush administration is considering creation of a fund that would combine tax dollars and money from the technology industry to pay for Internet security enhancements, according to internal documents from the government's effort to develop a national cyberprotection plan.
Federal officials writing the plan, set to be disclosed this month, also are discussing sweeping new obligations on companies, universities, federal agencies and home users designed to enhance security of the Internet, according to more than 30 pages of working papers obtained by The Associated Press.
The goal is to "empower all Americans to secure their portions of cyberspace," according to one document identified as an executive summary for the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.
Other ideas under consideration include:
-Improving security of wireless technologies, and prohibiting their use in some cases by federal workers;
-Spending more to protect computer systems that help operate major utilities like water and power;
-Studying ways to respond to cyberattacks when the source of the attacks cannot be distinguished immediately between a hostile government or teenage hacker;
-Creating an industry testing center that would make sure software updates don't cause security problems;
-Studying the creation of a new government network to handle communications and computing in case of Internet outages.
A White House official cautioned Friday the ideas cited in the working papers are subject to change until President Bush approves them. Even then, recommendations would have to go through traditional policy and budget processes, which could include congressional approval, the official said.
The administration circulated some draft language last week for review among federal agencies with instructions not to distribute it outside government, said one person familiar with effort, speaking on condition of anonymity.
An updated proposal is expected from the White House next week, with the plan's final release set for Sept. 18 at a news conference at Stanford University attended by FBI Director Robert Mueller and top administration officials.
The plan is expected to include more than 80 recommendations and is being assembled by a U.S. advisory board headed by Richard Clarke, a top counterterrorism official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, and Howard Schmidt, a former senior executive at Microsoft Corp.
The group's working papers describe creation of a technology fund "to address those discreet technology areas that fall outside the purview of both industry and government and yet are critical to the future secure functioning of the Internet."
The documents reviewed by the AP do not indicate whether the money would come from new taxes, grants or existing revenues, but they note that the fund could be "jointly financed by government and industry."
One example cited in the internal documents that could be paid by the fund is development of highly secure versions of computer operating system software. The most popular operating systems are from Microsoft, Apple Computer Co. and developers of the Linux software.
Some proposals in the working documents already have been struck from the final plan, the White House official said. One would urge Internet providers to offer customers security software that would protect them from hackers. Clarke has previously endorsed that proposal in public appearances.
In an unorthodox move drawing early praise among experts, the White House is placing some responsibility on home users for helping to secure the Internet, along with the nation's largest corporations and universities. Hackers increasingly have seized control of powerful, inexpensive home computers and high-speed residential Internet connections to attack others online or to hide illegal activities.
To help home users, the administration is considering a national advertising campaign aimed at schools and other audiences on the importance of safe computing, according to the documents.
The plan's working papers also recommend encouraging Internet providers to adopt a code of good conduct governing cooperation, encouraging government to collect better information about cyberattacks and studying whether harsher penalties for hacking are needed.
September 10th, 2002, 01:33 AM
Considering the way governments usually implement things, I don't see this going well at all. The tax will be be annoying, and after a few years it will probably be increased and just be another tax that goes into general revenues. All this for a few regulations/reports and some commercials? Doesn't sound too great to me.
Elen alcarin ar gwath halla ná engwar.
September 10th, 2002, 02:49 AM
Sure there will be a tax. I don't like that, but
what concerns me more is the inevitable intrusion that will take place. The US government and probably none of the others on this planet, can touch something without trying to control it.
Will they ask the opinions of the Internet users before making their rules? Not on your life. Those standards will be set by a group of people, most of whom barely know how to turn on a computer much less surf the net, use email, do any kind of programming, or even use a word processor. They think Linux is a character from the old Peanuts cartoon. Our only hope is to get the word out and hope they're bombarded with mail, both snail and email. Maybe, and it's a big maybe, they'll listen.