Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cybersecurity and Piracy on the High Seas

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-one-cent-in-tribute dept.

Security 116

Schneier points out an interesting article comparing modern cybersecurity to piracy on the high seas in the early 1800s. The article extends the comparison into projected action based on historical context. "Similarly, in many ways, current U.S. policy on the security of electronic commerce is similar to Adams' appeasement approach to the Barbary pirates. The U.S. government's inability to dictate a consistent cyber commerce protection policy is creating a financial burden on the U.S. private sector to maintain a status quo, when those resources could be used to mount a more-effective Internet-focused defense. In the case of financial fraud on the Internet, the costs associated with fraudulent transactions are currently borne by private companies, which then have to pass those costs on to their customers. This basically creates a system in which the financial institutions are paying a type of 'tribute' to the cyber criminals, just as Adams did to the Barbary pirates."

cancel ×

116 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

silly (0, Flamebait)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120872)

Except the difference is that software IS VIRTUAL. End of story. Next.

Re:silly (3, Insightful)

thygrrr (765730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120946)

Err, it's not about software piracy.

So what? Piracy is not This. (3, Interesting)

westbake (1275576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121452)

Software "piracy", entertainment "piracy", phishing ... the author is obviously conflating these things under the banner of IP and suggesting that there's an economic argument similar to one raised when the US was a free republic. The differences are glaring and obvious:

  • This is an attack on US Citizen rights to share and conduct commerce in a free way.
  • There is little common economic interest because the victims are media and software monopolies and users of their products.
  • The fight against industrial espionage and phishing is easily won by avoiding Microsoft Windows but those responsible are everywhere and nearly impossible to track, where pirates hide in well known, impossible to avoid places.
  • There already are massive law enforcement efforts to catch frauds.
  • Oh yeah, that big one, pirates murder people and steal real property. Sharing things is good. Draining bank accounts is bad, but it's not murder. The copyright warriors are nuts.

Oddly enough... (2, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120956)

the "Barbary Pirates" were actually privateers and muslim terrorists.

The response the US got back from the Barbary ambassador was that their taking captive sailors and forcing them to either convert or be killed was "founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." (quote the direct words of Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja , the Dey of Algiers to Britain).

Muslim terrorism isn't a new thing, it's been going on since Mohammed killed Safiya Bint Huyyay's entire tribe, cut her father's head off in front of her, raped her, then declared it a "marriage" the next day when his troops started grumbling that he always got the hottest chicks for his personal slaves.

Re:Oddly enough... (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121014)

While the religious basis of the Barbary pirates' acts is contentious (as is Washington's supposed insistence that the U.S. is a specifically Christian nation), I'd highly recommend reading up about the Barbary Wars in London's Victory in Tripoli [amazon.com] . Most Americans don't learn much about these skirmishes in school, since the usual course is just to skip from the American Revolution straight to the War of 1812 when covering wars. That's a pity, because the fight against the Barbary pirates was a big part of shaping the U.S. military into what it is today. It's not for nothing that the Marine's song references the shores of Tripoli (the Halls of Montezuma line is also a sadly forgotten episode).

Re:Oddly enough... (3, Interesting)

WaltBusterkeys (1156557) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121748)

Most Americans don't learn much about these skirmishes in school . . . . That's a pity, because the fight against the Barbary pirates was a big part of shaping the U.S. military into what it is today.

There's just not enough time in most school history classes to teach the kids something meaningful about all of the very major wars (Revolution, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam) that even some of the medium-sized wars (French and Indian, 1812, Korea) get short shrift. It's not a coincidence that Korea is called the "forgotten war." It'd be great if every high school kid had as much curiosity and interest about history as you clearly do, but it's just not the case. One survey, admittedly not very scientific, found that 57% of high school students didn't know that the Civil War was in the last half of the 19th century [cbsnews.com] .

That's pretty bad. I'd much rather fix that than worry about teaching them about Barbary pirates. Maybe the right solution is more edu-tainment programming; it seems that your lesson to be taken from the Barbaray pirates is not dates and places, but more of a zeitgeist about the forces that were acting on the US in the early days. Some of that can be captured in a good period piece--think Pirates of the Caribbean, except not entirely fictionalized.

Similarly, it looks some somebody has already made silly videos about " protecting web booty" [reputation...erblog.com] to riff on the pirate/cybersecurity theme.

Re:Oddly enough... (2, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122088)

There's just not enough time in most school history classes to teach the kids something meaningful about all of the very major wars (Revolution, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam) that even some of the medium-sized wars (French and Indian, 1812, Korea) get short shrift.
Why are we concentrating on the wars at all? What about the things that shaped our country's history between the wars?

My wife has been reading a 1930s high school U.S. history textbook, and has been fascinated by the descriptions of interpersonal relationships between various politicians at different stages in the country's history. The period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War in a modern text usually merits a page or two about Andrew Jackson, then the build-up to the war in terms of slavery and economic strife. The period between the Civil War and World War I often gets the same treatment.

How much about some of those wars truly matters? Who besides a history scholar cares the name of the British general in the Revolutionary War? Why cover WWI at all? Just leave that to a Western Civilization history class, which would certainly devote more time to its causes. Maybe mention it in terms of the mass-production revolution, and use it to lead into the subsequent economic boom, and leave it at that.

Talk more about the things that shaped the government, politics, and disagreements that our country still faces today, and you'll have students leaving the classes with a better understanding of the country they live in now. Memorizing dates and names from war to war leaves almost everyone forgetting everything, and never learning anything.

(Oh, and I loved my U.S. history class way back when, got a 5 on the AP test, and have done research on the Civil War. Please don't attack my credibility or say I just hate the wars or just hate history; comment on the merits of my proposal.)

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

WaltBusterkeys (1156557) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122490)

I'm not saying you need to know the names of the generals, but there's no doubt that the Civil War shaped America, or that WWII did just as much: Mass higher education started as a result of the government's GI bill program that was designed to give a useful task to soldiers returning from the field of battles; suburbia started when the soldiers started families; the baby boom generation is the echo of WWII; nuclear power came about faster because of the war effort, etc. It's not that war is itself important, but rather that it is usually a signpost for major cultural and economic changes. Korea is a forgotten war largely because it didn't change our country the same way Vietnam did.

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123722)

Funny the way that it always seems to be the wars that were lost that get omitted. According to US schoolbook history the was of 1812 was a draw. Funny, most folk would think having your capital burned to the ground and having the peace terms dictated by the other side was a loss. Fortunately for the US the peace terms that the British offered were very generous as they were much more concerned with the real war against Napoleon.

But this omission is nothing compared to the British history books where the English possessions in France grow and grow until suddenly you turn the page and only Calais is left with no explanation at all.

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

WaltBusterkeys (1156557) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123736)

Vietnam is sure as heck in the books, but we didn't win there.

And the capitol burned in the Civil War too. By your definition that's a loss.

Rah-rah boosterism is far worse in your head than in real life.

Re:Oddly enough... (4, Funny)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121858)

At my school we got halfway through the American Revolution, then went straight to the summer break. When we came back in the fall we were studying WWII, leaving me to infer that the colonies had won independence.

I didn't even know there was an American civil war until I visited the south, where I found out it's still being fought.

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123374)

In my high school, we got as far as the Civil War in our History of America class. By which I mean, on the last day of actual classes before finals, our history teacher talked about the Civil War.

And that was the last required history course, meaning that quite a lot of things that happened were sort of, well, skipped in my high school history education. World War II could be learned from the History Channel, but I did have to wonder about the "II" as if it were a sequel...

To be fair to the history teacher, though, we did at one point discuss the location of the stars in Super Mario 64. (Which kind of dates me.)

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122000)

as is Washington's supposed insistence that the U.S. is a specifically Christian nation
I never heard anything about Washington saying that, and, specifically, The Treaty of Tripoli, a preliminary version of which Washington himself signed shortly before leaving office, says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries


Given that Washington was almost certainly a Deist, I doubt very, very much that Washington ever insisted that the U.S. is a specifically Christian nation. Anyone saying that Washington did say that is certainly full of shite and probably has an obvious political agenda.

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122774)

While the religious basis of the Barbary pirates' acts is contentious (as is Washington's supposed insistence that the U.S. is a specifically Christian nation), I'd highly recommend reading up about the Barbary Wars in London's Victory in Tripoli . Most Americans don't learn much about these skirmishes in school, since the usual course is just to skip from the American Revolution straight to the War of 1812 when covering wars. That's a pity, because the fight against the Barbary pirates was a big part of shaping the U.S. military into what it is today. It's not for nothing that the Marine's song references the shores of Tripoli (the Halls of Montezuma line is also a sadly forgotten episode).

Yeah, I highly recommend to anyone to read up on this episode -- the Barbary pirates were one of the major issues facing the early presidents after Washington. Now that the new republic was independent, it no longer received protection for its ships (England paid protection money to the pirates, and American ships were included in the package deal), so it had to figure out if it wanted to pay the pirates off (indefinitely) or to go to war with them. Or make use of them in international warfare, as England and France did (they'd go to war and pay the pirates to attack the ships of the other countries). Our earliest post-Revolution heroes come from these conflicts (Stephen Decatur, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur [wikipedia.org] ).

There was a religious element to the Barbary elements, as there was a Christian element to the founding of the Republic. It's certainly not as cut and dry as people try to make it out (on both issues). For example, one of the more famous Barbary pirates was a Dutch guy, who was a Christian. But the pirates justified their actions in part because they were preying on infidels, not the true believers. Likewise, the Republic was founded by a variety of people who ranged from Congregationalists (Puritans) to Deists (many of whom didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus). So you can't say it was explicitly one way or another -- the treaty with Algiers talked about the US as not being an explicitly Christian nation, but 1) It was a diplomatic treaty with an Islamic country and 2) Other documents do talk about the Christian roots of the US.

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121156)

Thats both interesting, and hilarious, thanks!

Muslim != terrorist (2, Insightful)

kurisuto (165784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121720)

It is an anachronism to use the term "muslim terrorists" to refer to criminals of the early 19th century engaged in piracy for profit. Whether you think American and European policy in the Middle East over the last century has been right or wrong, it is fairly safe to say that "muslim terrorism" over the past few decades has been a consequence of those policies. It is a phenomenon of the 20th and 21st centuries.

When you look at the historical record over many centuries, it's hard to say whether Muslims or Christians have been worse in terms of violent acts. On their side of the ledger, Christians have the crusades (which included the slaughter of the Rhineland Jews, among other atrocities), the complete annihilation of the Cathars, and the burning of accused witches, just to name a few of the more obvious examples.

Most Muslims and Christians aren't terrorists, either now or at any time in history. There are obvious political or propoganda reasons for repeatedly using the words "muslim" and "terrorist" in the same context, but I don't think that doing so is helping the cause of sustainable peace.

Re:Muslim != terrorist (2, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121808)

Muslims who kidnap people and either kill them, or enslave them, unless they convert?

I'd call that terrorism. Fully Koranic-supported terrorism, btw.

Re:Muslim != terrorist (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121944)

Yeah, and Moses commands his people at Sinai to go murder each other because they had disobeyed rules they hadn't received yet under the direct purview of their divinely appointed religious leader. Not to mention that another of those rules they hadn't received yet was "Thou shalt not kill". =p

Re:Muslim != terrorist (1, Informative)

kurisuto (165784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122080)

However you define the word "terrorism", I think you should be consistent in applying it to anyone guilty of whatever act you're referring to, and not just to Muslims who are guilty of that act.

If by "terrorist" you mean someone who forces you to convert to his religion under threat of death or enslavement, then there are plenty of historical examples of "Christian terrorists" as in history well. Forcible conversion is hardly a uniquely Muslim phenomenon.

Re:Muslim != terrorist (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23123416)

With the exception that Christianity largely grew out of it. Islam hasn't. Also, Muslim terrorism can be supported by the Koran, where as the Bible largely tells you to love your neighbor. Mohammed killed and Raped. Jesus didn't.

Disclaimer: I was Christian, but more agnostic now, distrustful of any religions. But I can reason by way of facts.

Re:Muslim != terrorist (-1, Flamebait)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122620)

Christians who kidnap people and either kill them, or enslave them, unless they convert?

I'd call that terrorism. Fully Pope-supported terrorism btw.

Crusades and colonization at it's finest.

Re:Muslim != terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122916)

Muslims who kidnap people and either kill them, or enslave them, unless they convert? I'd call that terrorism.
Why do you refuse to use the commonly accepted definition of terrorism? Don't you find it difficult to have conversations with people when you make up your own definitions for words?

Mod Parent UP (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121832)

Very few political entities are bereft of terrorism. Schier once again makes numerous mistakes in pointing to the culpable. The culpable are: all of us, ranging from users teaching users, to ISPs, to the website owners, to the makers of protocols with holes like Swiss cheese (and apologies to the Swiss). It could be fixed, but no one wants to claim the nexus of responsibility.

The terrorism label is a red herring, great for propaganda and useless war mongering. No one doubts the existence of many organizations that will murder, some en masse, in the name of their cause.

Re:Oddly enough... (1)

cain (14472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122700)

-1 flamebait.

Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23123322)

Mohammed killed Safiya Bint Huyyay's entire tribe...

Where did you see this? I ran a search and couldn't find consensus on Mohammed's life. What is the source?

Re:silly (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120986)

Yes, and it's all created by virtual people who are happy to spend their professional lives working for virtually nothing.

Re:silly (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121136)

Yeah I know - I'm one of them, but people that get all pissy about the "security of the internet" and stuff just gals the hell out of me!

What would they like to do, have a big central server to send everything through? good luck with that.

The best they could do would be to have the seller create a signed pgp receipt of the sale which would be sent to the buyer and would be counter signed with their pgp key, which could be then sent to the bank directly which could then verify their customer pgp key against their on file key. Thats basically what you need to do if you want to secure transactions... It would of course be best if the customer's PGP key was stored on a key device which would do the signing itself and would have some sort of "unlock" code sent to it by the PC being used to talk to the seller...

I still say that its a bunch of virtual stuff and expecting some sort of magic protocol - enforced by the gov even! - is retarded. The gov doesn't actually dictate how CC's work, it was invented by mastercard in the 70s iirc.

Re:silly (1)

Digi-John (692918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121838)

What would they like to do, have a big central server to send everything through?

How about a giant Linksys router in an underground bunker in New Mexico?

Re:silly (3, Funny)

JamesP (688957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121370)

And as the old saying says...

Say no to Piracy! Don't steal ships.

What do you know? (4, Funny)

DrHackenbush (1273982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120898)

Interesting. Government is less effective than private companies. Who would have guessed?

Re:What do you know? (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121030)

Government is less effective than private companies. Who would have guessed?


Yeah. Look at what a great job private companies (Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Citigroup) did making loans. They were so effective at making loans, the government had to bail them out.

It's great to criticize government (I'm usually first in line) but when you're comparing something that large to one company, you can't. It's like comparing an oil tanker to a cigarette boat. Who do you think is more nimble?

Re:What do you know? (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121440)

Saying the government bailed out all of those companies is a gross and horrible oversimplification.

People who Bear Stearns owed money to got bailed out. Bear Stearns no longer exists as a company(most of the operations continue to exist under J.P. Morgan).

Countrywide and Citigroup didn't get anything more than cheap credit from the government.

Re:What do you know? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124420)

Saying the government bailed out all of those companies is a gross and horrible oversimplification.

An "oversimplification", yes.

A "gross and *horrible* oversimplification", I do not think so.

If we keep on bailing out those who fund the gamblers, then we're effectively bailing out the gamblers themselves. Corporate personhood is a fiction anyway. The first line creditors that get bailed out will be the past executives and employees that are owed wages and compensation in arrears, and any other first line creditors that get reimbursed first will be the creditors that were smart enough to have known better anyway.

This is only insuring that the cycle repeats itself. If we keep on bailing out the gamblers, then we're only encouraging more gambling in the long run.

Re:What do you know? (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122068)

No, the U.S. government gave a line of credit to J.P. Morgan Chase and essentially ordered them to bail them out -- IOW, paying off Bear Stearns' creditors.

Re:What do you know? (2, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123456)

Yeah. Look at what a great job private companies (Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Citigroup) did making loans. They were so effective at making loans, the government had to bail them out.
That is the real tragedy of it all the government did not have to bail them out. They chose to at the expense of everyone as well as the future to help at a few people who should have know better. Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The investors should have lost it all. That the game called investing. You can win and sometimes you can lose. Bear Stearns was posting huge profits by investing in risky loans themsevels. This was foolish, lost of people knew it. Lots of people did not get suckered in to loads with crazy and unknown payment scheduals, lots of people chose not to invest in Bear Stearns, no matter how good it looked.

In the end if the Governement had not chosen to ROB ( yes rob take MY money with the THREAT of FORCE ) me by using my tax dollars in a giveaway to bail out some bankers they would be gone. Ultimately Bear Sterns practices proved to be unvaible and inefficent the market had it been leaft alone would have eliminated that inefficency, leaving only more effient ( in this case more conservative ) banks behind and the same for hedge fund mangers and the idiot investors.

What the government did is break the free market! As the FED buying up these risky ( already expected to fail as far as the markets concerned ) securities from other banks and lendors like Countrywide well that is a travasty too. That does not benifet anyone living on main street its only good for big investment bankers. Conuntrywide had a liquidy problem and they could have solved it without a bailout.

Don't you think they can produce a list of customers who always pay on time and in greater amount then the schedule demands. Those are probably the same people who have other assets. If they needed capital so bad they might have approached those people who are using debt responsibly and made an offer. They could have said hey give use 20 or 30K tomorow and we will write down 60K off your loan. They get the cash they need today you get the time value of your money back. Maybe those responsible individuals would have even been rewarded with basicaly wipeing out all the intrest costs on their loans. That would have been great for middle class Americans.

It would have transfered wealth from the wealthy to the middle without any government force. It would have been the market at work. So if you are thinking gee maybe the goverment should help me out prices are going up and I am getting squeezed left an right, consider maybe what you should ask for is the goverment to just stop ripping you off, to pad the wallets of the already wealthy.

I am a middle class American. I work hard and I am responsible with money I carry only secure debt( debt owed on assests salable for that amount or more) my house. This credit crisis should have been a boon for me; but Uncle Sam stole from the poor and gave to the rich. That is what always happens when the government regulates. Even if your are big liberal you know Hillary and Obama are members of the top 1% or so and they are never going to do something thats good for you or the poorer classes. They are as selfish as everyone else, maybe more so and I have little help McCain will be any better. Congress is the real problem anyway. The president only matters in that a good one might stop some of Congresses downright criminal behaviors.

Re:What do you know? (1)

daemonenwind (178848) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124234)

US Bank is having no such problem, as you can see from their first quarter results and what the analysts said about them.

And they're not the only big bank.

The problem is executive focus on short-term profit over, well, anything else.

In the case of Bear Stearns, they had sufficient capital, it's just that no one wanted to trade with them, fearing they didn't. And that resulted in what is essentially a run on a bank. The government didn't step in for Bear Stearns, they stepped in to prevent all the major brokerage houses from following them down the hole.

And what a bailout! The fatcats of Bear saw their personal fortunes drop to about 7% of starting value within hours. (stock price from 150 to 10)

And, for what it's worth, analysts with a similar focus loved the moves those banks made - it made stockholders lots of money in dividend payments, up till now. You should move your money to some bank that makes smart decisions, or at the very least, decisions you agree with. After all, it's why Morgan Stanley just had what might be its best first quarter ever - customers of Bear left.

Re:What do you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121036)

You see this repeated a lot - but it's not true. American private-company-corrupted (!) weak government is less effective than private companies.

The US governments (state and federal) tend to suck incredibly much compared to european and certain asian governments. Now, I live under one of those governments, and I can tell you that an effective government is not necessarily a good thing at all, but an ineffective government and an effective oligopoly of large private companies controlling it (i.e. the US) is worse.

I'd rather a fucked up government and fucked up private companies so that they'd both stay the hell out of my way.

Not much. (2, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121754)

Interesting. Government is less effective than private companies. Who would have guessed?

It seems you (and the authors of the article) are missing a key point. Yes, international trade grew on a foundation of international and maritine law, but only after the Marines went in and kicked some Barbary butt. In that sense, government is more effective than private companies. (At least, private companies that don't have their own army and navy.)

Countries were able to reach peaceful agreements on how they would treat each others' ships at sea and use each others' ports only with the very real threat of military action.

To make an analogy to the internet, is there a real threat the USA will take militry action against Russia if that country continues to be a source of internet crime?

It's nice to say all countries in the 21st century have an interest in peaceful, orderly trade via the internet, just as countries had an interest in peaceful, orderly trade via shipping in the 18th. But the reality is, open shipping came at the point of a gun. If the analogy holds up, then is the same true for the internet?

Re:Not much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122030)

Interresting, but I hope you're wrong.

Pah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23120954)

No such thing. [yahoo.com]

Re:Pah (3, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120982)

***WARNING***

Link in parent is malicious. Do not click.


(Honestly, dude...it's getting old...)

Re:Pah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121584)

(Honestly, dude...it's getting old...)
Indeed. Some preliminary information regarding the hosted linked which I wouldn't know what to properly do with:

      Domain Name: NOTLONG.COM
      Registrar: DOTSTER, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.dotster.com
      Referral URL: http://www.dotster.com/ [dotster.com]
      Name Server: NS.LEVEL22.COM
      Status: clientDeleteProhibited
      Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Status: clientUpdateProhibited
      Updated Date: 02-apr-2008
      Creation Date: 04-jun-2002
      Expiration Date: 04-jun-2009

Registrant:
      c/o NOTLONG.COM
      P.O. Box 821650
      Vancouver, WA 98682
      US

      Registrar: DOTSTER
      Domain Name: NOTLONG.COM
            Created on: 04-JUN-02
            Expires on: 04-JUN-09
            Last Updated on: 02-APR-08

      Administrative Contact:
            ROvBWr@privacypost.com
            c/o NOTLONG.COM
            P.O. Box 821650
            Vancouver, WA 98682
            US
            +1.360-449-5933

      Technical Contact:
            dlGxR4@privacypost.com
            c/o NOTLONG.COM
            P.O. Box 821650
            Vancouver, WA 98682
            US
            +1.360-449-5933

      Domain servers in listed order:
            NS.LEVEL22.COM

But I am sure someone here is more knowlegeable in getting better info on the subject as well as what to do with it as well as possibly already working on it.

Guess it's unanimous... (1)

hilather (1079603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120976)

We're pirates not ninjas :(.

The modern internet piracy dictionary (5, Funny)

imyy4u2 (1275398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120994)

Looks like modern pirates would have a lot of words to relearn...

Hijacking - 1. Taking over a post on Slashdot.

Terrorism - 1. DOS attack against all the root DNS servers simultaneously. 2. Slashdotting a website.

"Arrrr..." - 1. Phrase uttered by someone who has just been linked to goatse.cz

One-Eye - 1. Asshole.

Pirate Flag - 1. Used to indicate a box has been pwned. 2. Used by Maddox (maddox.xmission.com) as a TM.

Booty - 1. A woman's butt.

Re:The modern internet piracy dictionary (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121728)

Looks like modern pirates would have a lot of words to relearn... One-Eye - 1. Asshole.
They may already be familiar with this one.

Instead of Car Analogies... (3, Funny)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 6 years ago | (#23120996)

...now we have bad boat analogies. Great.

Looks like the argument is "the government should be more involved in actually doing something." This is undoubtedly true; it's the government's job to set safety standards and to fight crime.

But really this is just an article that says "Hey, why not have the government fight crime?" with nautical window dressing. The author's better off scuttling the piracy angle.

It's IMHO even worse (2, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122324)

Well, IMHO the worst analogy is even in the summmary. Basically: (A) businesses lose money to fraud, which supposedly is like (B) the government paying tribute to the pirates.

I mean... Umm, excuse me? They don't look at all similar to me. Just because they share one element, it doesn't automatically make two things similar.

If it automatically did, we'd have a hell of a lot of ridiculous "similarities" all over the place. E.g., (A) the government still can't stop cars from killing innocent people, (B) Stalin and Pol Pot killed innocent people too. Ergo, any western government is no better than those murderous regimes. E.g., (A) the fire departments often can't save everyone from a fire, (B) the Spanish Inquisition burned a lot of people alive. Etc.

But to get back on topic: Similar to the losses to pirates, ok, I can swallow. Similar to the government paying off pireates, no, just now. It'll be similar when the government tries to pay off cyber-crooks or something.

Basically (A) is a case of maybe the government not doing enough, while (B) is a case of the government actively doing the wrong (and arguably bloody stupid thing.) Other than as a melodramatic hyperbole, they're not the same thing at all.

And if we're to go even deeper into it, it gets even more lame than that. The barbary piracy resulted in not just a _hell_ of a loss of money (the tribute demanded alone was 1/10 of the federal government's yearly income), and a rather serious disruption of trade, but also loss of lives, and a bunch of people taken into slavery. One of the explicit conditions at the end of the Second Barbary war was that they stop the practice of taking Christian slaves.

It takes a really disturbed mind to see, basically, "yeah, well, I'm not getting as much interest as I could on my bank account" as similar to someone else being taken into slavery.

21st century version of a protection racket? (2)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121040)

"The Bashaw, ruler of a semi-autonomous Ottoman province, was the leader of the loose confederation that became known as the Barbary States, and he ran an 18th-century version of what we today would call a protection racket."
So is it the anti malware vendors running the 21st century version of a protection racket?

Apparently so from TFA, ... either that, or it's just more FUD to encourage government control (read taxation) of the internet.

Re:21st century version of a protection racket? (1)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121120)

Actually, at the moment, RIGHT NOW, there are botnets that DDOS companies in return for extortion money.

No, really.

Re:21st century version of a protection racket? (1)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121516)

So then anti-distributed DoS products and services are the protection racket?

I don't think "Protection Racket" means what you think it means.

A protection racket [wikipedia.org] is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase "protection" services against various external threats.

DDoS is the "external threat". But let's go ahead and talk about "There ought to be a law" in regards to DDoS.

Who will follow those laws? That's easy, it will be the people who follow laws to begin with.

Let's start with that part; no matter if a DDoS victim chooses to pay, the victim will likely be required to report the attack to law enforcement under penalty of "the law". If the victim were not to report the "crime", (and/or pays up) should the victim then face civil and criminal penalties for not reporting it?

Because, as long as people pay, the extortionists will continue to attack.

Re:21st century version of a protection racket? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122440)

Because, as long as people pay, the extortionists will continue to attack.
It's the same for the Mafia today. It's still around. Companies could turn to law enforcement (which has no legal liability if attacks happen on their watch, and cannot promise they'd catch them), could invest millions more in security which still might not stop them (law of diminishing returns, infiltration and inside jobs, etc), or just pay the lousy couple grand every year or so and not get attacked.

You gotta pick your battles, and I don't know any corporations that have "oh, and, don't deal in protection rackets" as one of their business principles.

Re:21st century version of a protection racket? (1)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122598)

You have it exactly right. We are paying for law enforcement, (taxes) with no guarantee that laws will actually be enforced. And this is such a good idea that we should expand it (and the requisite tax burden) to the entire internet.

Re:21st century version of a protection racket? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121526)

Aren't there ways to prepare for/secure from DDOS attacks? Sure, server capabilities taken into account too.

Re:21st century version of a protection racket? (1)

solweil (1168955) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121556)

All governments and almost all organized groups of people are "protection rackets."

You can't have it both ways (5, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121096)

Either the government stays out of regulating and securing the internet or they don't. Which one do you really want? Do you want the government to be responsible for internet security enough to give them free reign to the point where they have control over all content? Or do you want to hold private industry responsible for securing their business transactions?

I'm of the opinion that the government should be there to hold private industry liable for any breaches of personal data that leads to fraud. If someone steals my credit information and makes purchases with them, the credit card company should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the person who made the purchase. The merchant should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the purchaser. The whole system needs to be changed. Instead of giving out free credit, they need to only give credit to those who ask for it. Turn it from a push to a pull system and validate the hell out of the puller.

On an only semi-related tangant, I'm waiting for the explosion in fraudulant health care claims. The health care cards themselves are simple pieces of paper. It is easy to get a picture idea with your picture and someone else's name on it. With the cost of health care skyrocketting in this country it is only a matter of time before people start getting health services under someone else's name. And I already know what is going to happen... the person whose name got abused is going to be liable for it, not the health providers who okayed the procedure in the first place.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121202)

I'm of the opinion that the government should be there to hold private industry liable for any breaches of personal data that leads to fraud. If someone steals my credit information and makes purchases with them, the credit card company should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the person who made the purchase. The merchant should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the purchaser. The whole system needs to be changed. Instead of giving out free credit, they need to only give credit to those who ask for it. Turn it from a push to a pull system and validate the hell out of the puller.

Yes! This at least makes sense. Now if only there was some way in which we could get congress to do their jobs and actually regulate something useful instead of declaring that they want to regulate p2p by filename.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

cain (14472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122566)

Either the government stays out of regulating and securing the internet or they don't. Which one do you really want?

False dichotomy. There is no reason a gov't can't have a small set of limited regulatory powers. And don't try a slippery slope response to this post. :)

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123062)

You are correct that there is no reason that the government can't have a small set of regulatory powers. In theory I could have a driveway made of milk chocolate. When looking at the REALITY of how the government functions, if you give them an inch they will take a mile. The point still stands... you can't on one hand gripe about the government not doing enough to fight internet "crime" and then on the other talk about wanting the government to take a hands off approach to the internet. The government works based on the assumption that if you want "security" you give them power to "regulate" what you demand that they secure.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

cain (14472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123192)

...if you give them an inch they will take a mile.
This is a slippery slope argument (and not even a reasonable one) and I said no slippery slopes. :) The point does not stand.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123314)

It's easy to say the point doesn't stand. I challenge you to find a Federal government level institution that has been around for more than 20 years that hasn't expanded its responsibilities and oversight capabilities. Find me a department that still has the same number of employees and hasn't been absorbed by another department that was expanding its own influence.

You say I'm using a slippery slope argument. I'm making the assertion that ever expanding governmental regulation is the way the government works. It isn't a logical device that I'm using as an argumentative technique. It is reality.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

cain (14472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123398)

Find me a department that still has the same number of employees and hasn't been absorbed by another department that was expanding its own influence.

That's your definition of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? That they have a few more employees that they started with? Jeeze, a mile isn't what it used to be. But ok, I'll give it a shot: NASA? the post office? the department of the interior? the EPA? The EPA is getting less and less effective and less and less regulatory as time goes on.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123452)

NASA and the Post Office aren't in charge of regulating anything in the capacity of having regulatory oversight of the private sector. I don't think the department of the interior is either, beyond resource rights for Federal land. Lets look at agencies that actually might be responsible for securing the internet. DHS? Huge new agency that is growing by leaps and bounds. The FBI? Violating the Constitution and over reaching left and right. The NSA? Those guys haven't stopped growing.

The "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is the analogy that you've come up with and that you're using. My point still stands. You can't expect the government to assume responsibility for detering crime on the internet without having them regulate the hell out of it.

Re:You can't have it both ways (1)

cain (14472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123560)

Shifting the goal posts are we? Let's look at where we stand.

You said:

You are correct that there is no reason that the government can't have a small set of regulatory powers. In theory I could have a driveway made of milk chocolate. When looking at the REALITY of how the government functions, if you give them an inch they will take a mile.
I responded:

This is a slippery slope argument (and not even a reasonable one) and I said no slippery slopes. :) The point does not stand.
You said:

...I challenge you to find a Federal government level institution that has been around for more than 20 years that hasn't expanded its responsibilities and oversight capabilities. Find me a department that still has the same number of employees and hasn't been absorbed by another department that was expanding its own influence.
I responded to your challenge:

... The EPA is getting less and less effective and less and less regulatory as time goes on. ...
Now you want me to limit my responses to "agencies that actually might be responsible for securing the internet," in effect making me choose DHS, FBI, or NSA. Your argument keeps shifting. If you want to restate and refine your initial argument, then who knows, maybe I'll even agree with it.

The "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is the analogy that you've come up with and that you're using.
"give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a direct quote from an earlier post of yours. I'm only using it because you asserted it. I wouldn't make my slopes a slippery as that. :)

So that that would be like, (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121114)

"Stop breaking into my server, ya' scurvy dog, or ya'll walk the plank! Arrrr!", right?

WTF is this guy talking about? (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121116)

We can go back to the example of how this strategy can be a success by looking at U.S. efforts on the illegal drug trade's supply lines across the Caribbean. The harassment, search and seizure activities effectively raised the cost of transporting illegal drugs, thereby forcing many drug cartels to build more-expensive transportation networks, and in some cases forcing criminals out of the market altogether.
The US War on Drugs has led to lower prices and higher purity of the product being smuggled into the country.

The rest of this article is full of similar crap ideas and analogies.

Aaron Turner, who manages security technology transfer and commercialization for the Idaho National Laboratory, previously worked in several of Microsoft's security divisions.
Oh. I see.
I guess it's easier to create an international body to oversee the internet than get Microsoft to put out a secure product.

Dude, WTF are YOU talking about? (2, Interesting)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121538)

The US War on Drugs has led to lower prices and higher purity of the product being smuggled into the country.
I would *love* to see the logic behind that one. I'm sure you have no citation because it doesn't make any sense.

Did the street price of booze go up or down during Prohibition? I'm betting up.

Re:Dude, WTF are YOU talking about? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122208)

Actually the DEA itself has supplied statistics that confirm this. Here is one recent citation News article. [sfgate.com]

Purity is really the wrong term. What has gone up is strength, because a stronger product packs more value into a smuggled pound. I don't know what happened to prices during prohibition, but Prohibition definitively changed the nature from a land of beer drinkers into a cocktail party nation.

Re:Dude, WTF are YOU talking about? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122354)

I would *love* to see the logic behind that one. I'm sure you have no citation because it doesn't make any sense.
http://www.ondcp.gov/publications/price_purity/fig1_38.pdf [ondcp.gov]
From 1981-2003, the general trend has been lower prices and higher purity.
In the interest of full disclosure, price/purity has been recently been trending in the opposite direction.

Did the street price of booze go up or down during Prohibition? I'm betting up.
Sigh.

Prohibition lasted 13 years and immediately sparked a running battle between police and moonshiners/bootleggers.
The alcohol industry was then quickly taken over by organized crime.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=cf0541b8-adda-4c54-ab20-f72fe6f9a3aa [hawaiireporter.com]
Summary: Prices spiked in the aftermath of prohibition and quickly began trending downward.
Alcohol consumption plummeted and quickly began trending upwards.

Cocaine has been illegal since 1914 and the industry was eventually taken over by... organized crime. Prices have gone down, consumption has gone up, and organized crime has taken control. Ditto for heroin, marijuana, amphetamines, ecstasy etc. About the only drug that hasn't followed this pattern is LSD.

It doesn't take a genius to see that spamming and internet fraud has been following the same pattern. Eastern European crime organizations are suspected to have moved in, the cost of purchasing time on a botnet or purchasing custom malware has gone down and the number of infected machines has sky rocketed... Hell, viruses didn't really start spreading until the late 80's and look where we are now.

The internet will arguably be easier to police than meatspace, but to do so will require a fundamental change of the freedom inherent in the architecture.

Re:Dude, WTF are YOU talking about? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123128)

Stuff being brought into the country is of higher purity because its easier to smuggle smaller quantities. Those small quantities can be turned into large ones when cut(mixed with something else).

Prices are certainly higher though, I don't know where the GP came up with that one. The fact that it is controlled and not availible though other sources or comoditized is why its smuggled it. The deals can charge almost whatever they want to.

Re:WTF is this guy talking about? (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121546)

The US War on Drugs has led to lower prices and higher purity of the product being smuggled into the country.
Nice choice of words, the real question is weather what gets sold is higher or lower purity, id guess that if the stuff is higher purity it just means local dealers cut it with more shit.

And whoever decided to call tenager who were thinking of copying music pirates, sould realise 2 thing:
1) You cant copy a bar of gold only take it, so the analogy is as fundamentally flawed as all those Wifi analogies!
2) Pirates are cool
Infact who ever made pirates of the carabian really shot themselves in the foot with regards to piracy "Come watch our film, because pirates are cool. NOOO! dont copy it pirates are bad!"

Re:WTF is this guy talking about? (1)

cain (14472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122666)

The US War on Drugs has led to lower prices and higher purity of the product being smuggled into the country.

Really, lower prices? You don't think that drugs produced by private enterprise or even the gov't would be cheaper? You don't think that if Bayer produced drugs like they produced aspirin that they'd be cheaper?

What is your reasoning here?

Unfortunately there is a key difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121118)

A pirate cannot sit in one country and commit his deeds in another country, far away from his physical location. There would not be any spam (at least not for long) if the spammer would have to come close to the recipient. Scammers have much better hideouts than pirates and, unlike their offshore counterparts, scammers never have to leave their hideout.

That's just "better cannon" (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121740)

A pirate cannot sit in one country and commit his deeds in another country, far away from his physical location.

The three mile limit was created because that was essentially the maximum range of cannon at the time: A shore battery could only hit something within that range, so that's how far the countries could claim their territory extended.

The cannon on pirate craft had an only slightly lesser range. A pirate, raiding a town, could bombard it from a couple miles out.

Modern alalogical "pirates", shouting an analogical "stand and deliver" as they extort valuables from their victims, just have analogical cannon with MUCH longer ranges. B-)

who's paying the tribute? (0, Offtopic)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121134)

If financial institutions pass the costs onto their customers, then aren't the customers paying the "pirate tribute"? Also, on an unrelated note, I sure hope that Pirates of the Carribean 4 is rated "ARRR!"

I didn't agree with TFA... (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121180)

...because it was a stupid arrrrrrrrrrgument.

Credit card fraud? Bah (2, Insightful)

IdeaMan (216340) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121206)

His analogy of credit card fraud to piracy just hogwash. Credit card fraud typically doesn't occur by ISP's snooping on internet traffic because that is just too dangerous to the ISP's business and reputation. It's just easier to crack open someones database to harvest the numbers.

His analogy works far better when talking about Net Neutrality. You could say that ISPs are charging tribute based on packet type. The closest you could get is if a foreign country started blocking traffic to Amazon, or if say a British ISP started removing/substituting ads from American websites.

Article summary:
Its like if you were driving your car filled with Natalie Portman dolls filled with hot grits across the Atlantic at 5 furlongs per fortnight and the RIAA stopped you and robbed all the dolls. Except on the net where its LOCs of data per fortnight, not dolls. What he's saying is that we should call out the US Army to kill all the RIAA lawyers, but of course that should be illegal but they changed the law recently because of the Katrina reaction so now it isn't.

Government money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121234)

If the government should be paying for it, where does the government get its money?

If the government pays for it, it still comes out of all of our pockets.

The government can not create value.

At this point, they are just trying to piss me off (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121286)

Solving the problem of internet security is amazingly trivial in the US. Offer bounties and encourage supervised (logged?) domestic attacks.

The only reason I can imagine for the US government to discourage or jail our millions of ambitious hackers instead of enlisting them is that they don't want the holes found. Either that or arrogance and stupidity on such a massive scale that I can't actually picture it.

Hmm, but then it is the US government we're talking about. Never mind.

This game sucks.

Shhh! (2, Funny)

TheOldSchooler (850678) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121336)

Don't let W. hear this. Next thing you know we'll be sending the Internet Marines to invade Romania.

As History Shows (2, Informative)

Stormcrow309 (590240) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121372)

Hell, lets resolve this like they did back then. Give me an unit of marines, a naval squadron, and three times as many mercenaries. I will just shoot the hackers. Sing the song be damed, we'll just shoot them in the head.

Apples and Oranges (1)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121480)

The Barbary pirates were a direct extension of national power using very high value strategic assets. While Cybersecurity attacks may come from nations they can just as easily come from criminal, religious, political groups, or even from a single person. The biggest difference is that the cost of many multiple is very low while military ships is very high. It is hard to make war on fanatics in 3rd world basement or crooks in cybercafes.

The law is part of the problem (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121534)

Why is it easy for me to get a new credit line of some sort? I should have to go into a bank with at least two forms of state ID, and fill out the paperwork in front of an employee of the bank instead of being able to just mail out a form with no ID other than a SSN and a wink.

The financial institutions need this easy ability to shove credit down people's throats because the cost of doing it right isn't nearly as profitable. However, it is a lot safer and would solve a lot of the problems that banks have with security.

Re:The law is part of the problem (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123188)

The system is setup in the following way. The banks "loan" money based on the amount of "debt" they have on their books. So if they send you a credit card with a $5,000 limit and you max it out then they suddenly have $5,000 to lend to someone else. We will never see any real regulation of consumer credit because consumer credit is what keeps this fucked up economy of ours going.

Idiotic comparison (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121540)

If they compare it to real piracy, in the same way they can compare to any stealing, railway robberies in US in XIX century, bank robbing...

Pathetic idiotic idiots soaked in their idiocy.

The concept of intellectual property exists since middle ages, when craftsmen corporations were guarding their technological secrets. That would be better, but still utterly useless train of analogy.

There is nothing comparable in the technological ease with which modern digitized intellectual property is stolen. Absolutely nothing.

SO stop idiotic comparisons and do something useful.

BooHoo, poor banks and credit companies (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23121570)

Personally, I think the "fraud" here is that these credit companies are still working on transaction idioms that were devised in the 1960s when a person's signature was "good enough" as authentication!

This is a case of banks and credit companies not wanting to change their approach because it's cost prohibitive and puts their business model at risk (hmm, where else are we seeing this right now?). Welcome to an interconnected world, there's a price to pay, maybe you shouldn't have sat on your @$$ all this time and actually kept up with the times.

The thought of the government being responsible to protect bank and creditor's interest scares me.

Let the law enforcement and the military deal with the child pornographers, the kidnappers, and the terrorists. Let the government pass legislation that obliges credit card companies to disclose data on fraud including the cost and the root factors. Maybe they'll see that I'm right!

Arrrrrr matey!

Re:BooHoo, poor banks and credit companies (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123136)

I completely agree with all of this. The unfortunate reality of the world in this day and age is that the government is simply a tool of the banks because the government is dependent on the banks to function. If you have the ability to do so, read The Creature from Jekyll Island for a very good overview of the dynamics between the Federal Reserve and the governments of the world (including the United States government).

Cyber (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121680)

The word's trite & wrong. Whoever uses that should be treated with scorn & beaten about the head and shoulders.

Imperialism! (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121726)

American standards shall rule the internet. It shall be so decreed. Infringement of American Internet Control Standards shall be an act of war! Yeah, right, whatever.

Re:Imperialism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23122760)

Nice to know that you so value everything America has contributed to this little project -- the microprocessor (TI/Intel), C/UNIX (ATT), BSD;TCP/IP (UC Berkley), and oh, yeah that DARPA-NET thing...

the web is nice and all, and i know that other countries have done a lot -- but its hardly "imperialism" in this case.

Piracy on the high seas (1)

rakzor (1198165) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121732)

Like real sword wielding pirates?

Why don't they learn? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23121828)

Rudyard Kipling covered this already [newcastle.edu.au] . Why don't they learn?

Oblig. (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122664)

The U.S. government's inability to dictate a consistent cyber commerce protection policy is creating a financial burden on the U.S. private sector to maintain a status quo, when those resources could be used to mount a more-effective Internet-focused defense.
BINGO!

This is useless drivel (1)

Ba3r (720309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122688)

At first intrigued by a somewhat interesting analogy (cyberspace, pirates, seas), it quick became apparent this author has no real understanding of how "cybercrime" is perpetrated. Seriously, how can we expect the US government to aggressively thwart botnets? The analogy basically falls flat on its face primarily because as a somewhat anonymous, automated and decentralized structure, it would be impossible to target the sources.

There is,however, an interesting analogy the author totally missed. There is a trust network already, where email that originates outside of the major webmail providers must enter a trust network. Once the email enters (gmail|yahoo|hotmail), it is afforded a certain level of trust by the others as it is coming from a source that is known to patrol its user base. Similar to this would be a bunch of ports in the high seas that level a certain amount of security...

No,it's not.Let Leviathan try and prove its point. (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123142)

this author has no real understanding of how "cybercrime" is perpetrated. Seriously, how can we expect the US government to aggressively thwart botnets? The analogy basically falls flat on its face primarily because as a somewhat anonymous, automated and decentralized structure, it would be impossible to target the sources.
Authorities the world over have been trying to erode everyone's privacy in communications (with alarming success) based on the claim that they could then combat precisely this type of threat!

Command&control in structures of loosely organized cells are what they claim to be able to eradicate this way, so let (or rather, make) them try out their methods to justify their approach - in a crackdown on cybercrime [slashdot.org] . If they fail, though, we want our liberties back as we'd have no more reason to expect success from tackling an enemy that fortunately doesn't rear its ugly head all that often.

Arrr! Join me in drunken song lads! (1)

ragincajun1337 (1271286) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122746)

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me

We pillage, we plunder, we rifle and loot
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot
Drink up me hearties, yo ho

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me

We extort, we pilfer, we filch and sack
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Maraud and embezzle and even high-jack
Drink up me hearties yo ho

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me

We kindle and char, inflame and ignite
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We burn up the city, we're really a fright
Drink up me hearties, yo ho

We're rascals, scoundrels, villains, and knaves
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We're devils and black sheep, really bad eggs
Drink up me hearties, yo ho

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me

We're beggars and blighters and ne'er do-well cads
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Aye, but we're loved by our mommies and dads
Drink up me hearties, yo ho

A new space age (1)

yayotters (833158) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122810)

Piracy on the internets is cool and all...
But I'm still waiting for a new space age when piracy in space occurs and when we use grappler ships!


Yes!

Issue with analogy (1)

jhRisk (1055806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23122858)

Unfortunately the first key difference that shatters the analogy in my opinion is that shipping, commerce and pirates have never been nebulous concepts and therefore one can move straight into the heart of the matter and create actionable items. Anything related to the "inter-webs" unfortunately requires much more definition and learning just to get a foundation of understanding which is very rarely done as part of the necessary due diligence all three of our branches should be doing on an ongoing basis. Take spam legislation as an example. Remove the impact of marketing lobby groups and I'm not convinced we'd be that better off.

Next, pirates, like conventional war enemies, are identifiable. Cybercrime is more along the lines of terrorism in that even identifying the targets is extremely difficult and the potential for collateral damage high if you're not careful. If one carries the shipping analogy along the situation includes such scenarios as the fact that normal merchant ships are carrying invisible pirates who unbeknownst to them steal cargo from nearby ships. I doubt Jefferson would approve taking these ships out to protect American interests.

In my opinion the solution lies with legislation and government support for those hosting the valuable assets (ex. financial institutions, ISPs, etc.) Carrying the shipping analogy along once more, in WWII we learned a hard lesson with respect to our Atlantic shipping getting taken out by U boats. After many losses but before cracking Nazi codes we finally started providing military escorts which reduced losses. The impact of security compliance legislation like SOX is tremendous for our enterprises much like a lack of military escort was for WWII merchant ships. Help them and perhaps even incentivize security reinforcement. Leaving the actual counter cyber terrorism we perform clandestine I believe is critical to its efficacy.

This title had so much potential (1)

DeathOfScythes (966964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23123298)

I read the title and hoped that the story was about lax cybersecurity alowing pirates (the real, ak-47 wielding kind) to know which ships held the most valuble cargo and acting on the information. Images of third world crackers typing at a beat up terminal and finding their way into teh database of shipping companies, followed by the whitehat on the other end redirecting them to the coordinants of the local navy.

I watch too many bad movies.

umm not really.. (1)

linuxbert (78156) | more than 6 years ago | (#23124096)

fundamentally there is a huge difference between the internet and pirates of the nautical variety. Every part of the internet is owned by a corporation and therefore that corporation is subject to the laws (or a lack there of) of a nation. The IMO regulates international shipping, nations base their laws on international directives. in theory this could work for cybercrime. Modern nautical pirates exist in nations without a political structure - look at Somlia - they are responsible for most most modern piracy incidents, but at the same time are likely poorly connected. Therefore the conditions that breed piracy, tend to preclude internet connectivity, so i would suggest that the comparison is interesting, but weak, and if anything, is an argument for replacing ICANN with a body more akin to the ISO - which works much as the IMO does.

As an aside, I would also like everyone to look at actual piracy - involving the capture of ships, crew and sometimes their murder. see how this compares to the copying of music videos, and software. Copyright infringement is just that, not piracy. it does a disservice to the victims of true piracy.

Rather dangerous words here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23124360)


"...The U.S. government's inability to dictate a consistent cyber commerce protection policy..."

I'd prefer to keep net neutrality at the cost of piracy than to make the internet a Federal institution.

> Private industry does business online, therefore private industry should be bearing the costs of business online. For the government to step in and do that then the tax payer, or consumer bears the cost which is backwards.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>