Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the waiting-for-the-other-shoe dept.

Censorship 479

A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.

cancel ×

479 comments

Just wait ... (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488421)

They do that, all bets are off. They'll be encrypted VPNs, private nets and all sorts of things that they'll NEVER be able to control. The tighter your grip becomes, the more Nets will slip through your fingers!

Re:Just wait ... (5, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488457)

Until they just indiscriminately block all packets they can't identify. ISP are already itching to do that.

P2P and freedom of speech in one blow, what could be better?

Re:Just wait ... (5, Insightful)

mvh (9295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488549)

Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network. And perhaps we can start again and this time try to avoid Eternal September.

Re:Just wait ... (4, Funny)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488593)

me too!

Re:Just wait ... (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489011)

Re:Just wait ... (Score:1, Insightful)
by mvh (9295) on Tuesday August 05, @07:07PM (#24488549) Homepage

Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network. And perhaps we can start again and this time try to avoid Eternal September.
Reply to This Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Funny)
by chris_mahan (256577) on Tuesday August 05, @07:09PM (#24488593) Homepage

me too!
--

"Piter, too, is dead."

Me too!!!!

Re:Just wait ... (4, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488609)

Good luck with that. As long as the masses can still get to their myspace, facebook and ebay, the majority of people won't care enough to make funding something of that scale possible. Perhaps isolated networks will pop up, build on things like wifi or in dense cities - but the internet as we know it will be dead.

Re:Just wait ... (5, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489273)

Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time.

The fact that people generally tolerate things is at least an indication that a call to revolution is not going to succeed.

I know people who have lived under martial law and genuine oppression. I laugh at Americans who seem to actually believe there is a spirit sufficient to outright spark a revolution.

Re:Just wait ... (0, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488891)

Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network.

Just like that? "Build a better network"? And how are you going to wire that "last mile" for everyone?

Really, Net Neutrality aside, there's no way to protect ourselves from another authoritarian administration using ISPs to take away our internet. EXCEPT if we don't elect them.

You want to tell me that John McCain, with his hawkish militaristic background, will even blink at listening to the NSA guys when they tell him they have to shut down the internet, or more likely, turn it into network television?

No, if you want to avoid the kind of post-9/11 hysteria that has destroyed our economy and the airline industry, raised the price of oil 300 percent and destroyed our civil rights by giving the government unchecked surveillance and arrest powers, the best bet is to JUST NOT ELECT ANOTHER AUTHORITARIAN REPUBLICAN ASSHOLE. This isn't all that sophisticated. Even if you're one of those Fox News wingnuts who just hates the idea of a black man being president, and believes ol' Rushbo when he tells you that liberals are the antichrist, just ask yourself if you want to lose your internet and all the free porn. You don't want that, do you? And for everyone else, now is not the time to worry about poor Miz Hilary getting disrespected. Just suck it up and vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it. At least then we stand a fighting chance of not losing the rest of what once made this country great.

I'm sorry, all of you slashdot readers who don't live in the US. We've got a lot of knuckleheads who still need it spelled out for them, thanks to our corporate media and Republican party that likes to manipulate the weakest minds with ugly racism and sexism. I swear that most of us really didn't want George Bush, but when you've got the company that makes the computer voting machines AND the Supreme Court working against you, there's not a lot you can do. Don't hold it against us, because we're under attack from an authoritarian corporate class that has long given up on the principles upon which America was founded.

For those of us that DO live in the US, remember, nothing short of a landslide victory for Obama is going to keep the tin-pot dictators of the GOP out of the White House this time. Don't fuck around, folks. We have to win or this time, there really won't be anyplace to run.

Re:Just wait ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489103)

Keep in mind, our Democratic Congress apparently doesn't mind rubber-stamping this shit. Even your precious Barack Obama voted for telecom immunity.

vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (4, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489105)

At least then we stand a fighting chance of not losing the rest of what once made this country great.

No, I'm voting for Bob Barr [bobbarr2008.com] . Between McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama, add Hillary to the ticket though and I'd vote for McCain if his running mate isn't too bad. If there wasn't another person running, but there is. McCain scares me but not as much as Hillary does.

We've got a lot of knuckleheads who still need it spelled out for them, thanks to our corporate media and Republican party that likes to manipulate the weakest minds with ugly racism and sexism.

On the other hand there's the Democratic Party, and the mass media that supports it, that wants to turn the country into a nanny state.

For those of us that DO live in the US, remember, nothing short of a landslide victory for Obama is going to keep the tin-pot dictators of the GOP out of the White House this time.

Yea, who needs the tin-pot, or socialist dictators, when you can have liberty instead by voting for the Libertarian candidate?

Falcon

Re:Just wait ... (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489093)

Which is why you must keep your copper dry. (And modems).

Re:Just wait ... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488637)

Then we'll just have to disguise our packets as something else.

Re:Just wait ... (5, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488733)

Splenda?

Re:Just wait ... (4, Funny)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488913)

These are not the packets you are looking for.... (wave hand)

Re:Just wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488687)

There is no "they" or ISP in a private net.

Re:Just wait ... (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488823)

Anything to prevent a "cyber-9/11". It'd be like 9/11 except instead of planes there'd be data expressed in electrical waves, and instead of massive loss of life there'd be a period of down-time.

Re:Just wait ... (5, Funny)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488895)

It would have been more witty to say "and instead of massive loss of life there'd be a massive loss of file"

Re:Just wait ... (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488931)

Until they just indiscriminately block all packets they can't identify. ISP are already itching to do that.

Let's bring on Open Mesh-net [open-mesh.net] then. Other than my own I see two wifi connections available on my list, however it only lists three with a fourth choice of Other...

Falcon

Re:Just wait ... (1)

gerf (532474) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488943)

Then we'll just have to disguise packets as images or something goofy.

I can just just imagine some OSS p2p project hiding encoding amongst (the appropriate in this case) hello.jpg being sent back and forth between distributed clients.

Can't you see it now? Goatse saves the world!

Re:Just wait ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489095)

The only solution to that will be steganography -- sending packets that are valid HTTP, say, but have subchannels encoded into them. The ISPs can't block those, since their scanners will say its 'allowed' traffic. Usable bandwidth will suck, but there's a tat for every tit, so to speak.

The postal service in centuries past had to go so far as to refuse free postage for newspapers, as people started using them for sending free letters to each other by poking little holes above the letters in articles to encode messages. But I don't think the ISPs can afford to refuse HTTP traffic altogether.

Re:Just wait ... (2, Interesting)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488499)

They'll just instruct the ISPs to comply (meaning block any undecryptable traffic) or face mean men with guns.

Would that get us closer to Civil War? You bet.

Would that actually get us to Civil War? No, not as long as myspace, google, and facebook still work.

Port 443 would be blocked for all except online banks and those who comply with the government in other ways (think lots of logs and/or live monitoring of post-ssl traffic).

Any ISP personnel facing potential felony charges will think first of their families (as they should) and comply, at the expense of Joe Hacker.

Re:Just wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488627)

It's still an arms race scenario, there are already plenty of known methods of hiding data in known types of traffic, such as data hidden in images.

Re:Just wait ... (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488779)

Maybe the government would "reprocess" images so that any steganography would be scrambled? They wouldn't actually read the messages, but they could neutralize the vector.

Would it be massively expensive? You bet. That's never stopped the government, though.

Re:Just wait ... (1)

lordofwhee (1187719) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488897)

They'd have to change every single pixel in such a way as to make the change transparent to anyone that wasn't looking for it, and then it'd just be a simple matter of breaking the algorithm, implementing a data integrity check and data recovery code of some sort.

No matter what the government would throw at us, we'd break it, do our best to keep the break hidden for as long as possible, and break the next thing that came up, until eventually there'd be enough organization among hackers to simply shut all these filters down.

Re:Just wait ... (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489001)

Who says the images would remain exactly the same? The government could easily apply a destructive filter to the image that would degrade the image somewhat, effectively neutralizing steganography, but leaving the image still good enough for common browsing.

Maybe they'll come up with an image processing server that all ISPs must install on premises. This would not be hard. They could do the same with video. Heck I would not be surprised if current monitoring equipment didn't have that capability already, waiting for the activate command.

Re:Just wait ... (1, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488737)

Port 443 would be blocked for all except online banks and those who comply with the government in other ways (think lots of logs and/or live monitoring of post-ssl traffic).

Port 443 is *already* effectively blocked for anyone who isn't centrally approved. Have you seen the error message you get in IE or Firefox when you try to visit a site with a self-signed certificate?

Re:Just wait ... (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488807)

Yeah, and maybe the getting a cert would involve a Department of Homeland Security approval process.

Re:Just wait ... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488855)

No, no it isn't, you just have to click through or make sure to pre-distribute your keys.

That's not blocking, it's good sense to stock Joe six-pack getting scammed. SSL without authentication could extremely easily be monitored by your favourite (government co-operating) ISP.

Re:Just wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488877)

I'm amazed at the number of people who can afford £10/month for internet access, but can't afford £7.60/year for an ssl certificate.

Re:Just wait ... (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488953)

Would that get us closer to Civil War? You bet

Actually, no it won't. How are we gonna organize to fight back if our phones are bugged and our email is rinsed through the NSA/ATT?

Naw, Chris, this little coup has been in the works a long time. As the article said, that execrable "Patriot Act" was on the table long before 9/11, which only made it convenient for the little pissant tyrant in the White House (may he burn in Hell).

We've got to head this BS off before it can happen. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to do that in November, this year. I was at the UofC when Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar there. There are only a handful of people in this country who know the Constitution better than he does (read his articles from the Law Review). And from what I hear, he's a lover of freedom and a true believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we put him in the White House, we stand a fighting chance to turn this thing around.

Plus, having a young black president will make the jackoff racists' heads explode, which will make for some great entertainment for the next 4/8 years.

Re:Just wait ... (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489073)

> There are only a handful of people in this country who know the
> Constitution better than he does...

The man is an illiterate fool. He can't even parse simple English phrases like "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be infringed."

Seriously. Either he is a total illiterate and is thus excused for being a gun banner and free speech infringer (but also unfit for elective office) or he does know and doesn't care, thus is evil. Not that McCain (of McCain/Fielgold) is much of an improvement on the 1st Amendment. Grr.

Re:Just wait ... (0)

drDugan (219551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489161)

THE POLLS FOR MCCAIN AND OBAMA ARE ALMOST EQUAL
and if history is a guide, Republicans usually win recent presidential elections, especially if people use Diebold machines.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Where's the Landslide?

By DAVID BROOKS
August 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html?th&emc=th [nytimes.com]
Why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened,
does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain,
according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied
with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?

His age probably has something to do with it. So does his race. But
the polls and focus groups suggest that people aren't dismissive of
Obama or hostile to him. Instead, they're wary and uncertain. ...

Obama (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489243)

I was at the UofC when Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar there. There are only a handful of people in this country who know the Constitution better than he does (read his articles from the Law Review). And from what I hear, he's a lover of freedom and a true believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Can you show me where the USA Constitution authorizes Obama's health care plan?

Plus, having a young black president will make the jackoff racists' heads explode, which will make for some great entertainment for the next 4/8 years.

Agreed, but it doesn't require Obama. Before he stood up in front of the UN Security Council and said Saddam had all those WMDs, which I'm still waiting to see, I would have supported Colon Powell as president.

Falcon

Re:Just wait ... (4, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488521)

You're probably right. Like old saying goes, locks only keep out the honest people. And the more tyrannical our government becomes, the higher the percentage of criminalized population. Criminalized people can't afford to be honest.

Re:Just wait ... (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488993)

Or perhaps a quote I remembered from somewhere

in a free government, that which is common is legal

On that basis (and many others) the US, UK, Canada and all other "free" nations seem to be heading down the road to tyranny.

Re:Just wait ... (0)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488581)

All bets should *already* be off AFAIK

The trouble with trusting the government is that it has never worked out well at all. There is already some movement afoot to use encryption, vpn's, tor, and others etc. What needs to happen is for users to very quickly start shutting down open communications now. Let the guvmint types try to figure out how to then do an i9/11 event.

The level of conspiracy talk that is running around the world right now is IMO enough to start impeachment proceedings. There is no smoke without fire as they say, and you can't put out the fire without getting in the middle of the smoke. The point of the pyramid has to be in the middle of the structure, so we might as well start there. Mixing metaphors, once we're pissing on the fire, you can catch the rats as the jump ship.

Sort of a pre-emptive strike in the war on corruption. Now that's a war I can get behind.

Re:Just wait ... (1)

MSZ (26307) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488645)

encrypted VPNs
Terrorists tunnelling their venomous propaganda onto the American soil! Off to Egyptian dungeon you go!

private nets
Secret terrorist organizations! Off to Gitmo you go!

all sorts of things that they'll NEVER be able to control
Traitors! Shoot to kill! Off to the mass grave you go!

Richard Clarke (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488441)

Well I wouldn't exactly haev a lot of confidence in anything Richard Clarke says. Besides being dimwitted enough to be supporting Obambi (says a lot about how serious he considers the threat of Islamic terrorism doesn't it....) he didn't exactly cover himself in glory in the portmortems of 9/11.

Re:Richard Clarke (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488539)

-1, lamebait

Obambi? Seriously? Maybe it isn't Clarke's dimwittedness that you should be concerned about

Re:Richard Clarke (0)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489113)

Yes, Obambi. The terrorists will be dancing in the streets when[1] he gets elected. Expect things to get very bad during his single term in office.

[1] I'm under no illusions on the when part. McCain has no more chance of defeating Obama than Dole had vs Clinton in '96. Primogeniture is a bad way of picking nominees, wish the Republicans could figure that out.

Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488463)

We need to start encrypting basic stuff. We need a full encryption suite built into Firefox and available for other browsers to include right away. We need a more redundant DNS and we need public sites for checking against the scrubbing of news sites.

Unless we do this, the terrorists will win.

Re:Encryption (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488589)

We need to start encrypting basic stuff.

Until the US government demand ISPs start blocking all encrypted traffic that doesn't have an SSL certificate provided by 'authorised' suppliers.

Remember that to stop someone doing something, non-essential: not eating or breathing, you just need to make it hard enough to be not worth their while. An example of this is the Chinese firewall, people know the government are watching, so they don't bother looking at anything that isn't authorised. In this case, if nerds start demanding everyone encrypt everything, they'll be ignored. Who can be arsed to purchase an SSL certificate, just to run a small Web site, or IM their friends?

Re:Encryption (2, Insightful)

lordofwhee (1187719) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488933)

You know, there are other forms of encryption besides SSL that don't require a certificate of any kind.

Anyway, when this becomes an issue (trust me, it's a 'when'), who signed the certificate will be totally ignored, because the only way to get a certificate that isn't self-signed would be through the .gov, defeating the purpose.

A video?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488473)

i know we are in the web2.0 thing, but please, link at least a transcript, so i don't waste ten minutes of my life listening a crappy recording.

Well gee... (1)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488493)

Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.

Anonymous Coward (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488773)

Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.

I'm a brit, born in the seventies. The IRA was part of my life.

Way, Way, Way back before 911 us brits lived with terrorism on a daily basis. Terrorism that was funded via NORAID.

My grandfather nerely died in the early 60s from an IRA bomb in the centre of London during a national exhibition.

In central London, for as long as I have known we have never had refuse bins on our underground system, the reason being 'because if we did, the IRA would put bombs in them'

wtf is going on here?

I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced. (that our friends in the USA funded)

Fsckwits

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488851)

Fsckwits

root$ fsck wits
BAD SUPER BLOCK

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

a_real_bast... (1305351) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488911)

Shouldn't have posted AC; you deserve a karma boost for that one. ",)

So, who originally wrote it ? (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488507)

Who wrote it ? In which administration ? Curious minds want to know.

It was obvious to me in 2001 that this had been previously prepared, and it astounded me that anyone would fall for this BS.
Unfortunately, history indicates they would probably do it again.

Lots of docs, lots of speculation (5, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488869)

The "think tanks" generate many documents and plans, many of which never see daylight. This is part of the normal "what if" analysis or things that might happen and how to deal with them. It is no more suprising that they have a plan ready to drop in place after 9/11 than if they had a plan to drop in to place to quell riots or handle a gas shortage or any other scenario. Apart from disaster management, these plans also have political agendas.

One major political function of these plans is to have PR: look like you can command decisively and keep the population confident in your abilities. Another is to be able to turn these disasters into an opportunity to pass legislation/budget that the people would normally choke on. GWB played both these cards really well.

Re:Lots of docs, lots of speculation (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489269)

Which doesn't really answer the question. There's left leaning thinktanks and right leaning thinktanks, etc. The Bush administration clearly used plans produced by neocon thinktanks, but it's likely that the next whitehouse tenants will be using plans from a different bunch of thinktanks. So the real question is, for each candidate, which group of people does the "thinking" for them, and what have they published so far?

Re:So, who originally wrote it ? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489033)

Unfortunately, history indicates they would probably do it again.

And did it before. Look at the Japanese internment camps after the pearl harbor bombings, they were US citizens who happened to be Japanese. Now it is they are US citizens but have internet access. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment_camp [wikipedia.org]

Contingency Plans (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489087)

Having a contingency plan in case of emergency is not only smart, but required by law in many areas. There are plans for many emergencies like an earthquake, fire, hurricane, building evacuation, chemical spill, conventional war, cyber war, hijacked plane, running out of coffee, etc. Just because Lessig has legitimate concerns about any particular act, does not mean the Illuminati is just waiting around for the right moment to spring their Global World Domination Plan (tm).

For instance, plans for invading Iraq were required of the Pentagon after Clinton reviewed the investigation report of the 1st World Trade Center bombing back in the early 90s. Bush was still just a governor at the time, but 'popular' history will remember it as his idea. Idiocracy [wikipedia.org] anyone.

they're not humans! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488523)

faggots eat the shit out of other faggots asses. how can you let that in your home?

And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488533)

in u.s.

remember what happened to u.s. tourism after that patriot act shit was dropped in the congress ? u.s. tourism sector NEVER recovered from it.

excuse me but the rest of the world cant take that kind of shit from u.s. again. if that happens, we all will just create another internet, complete with its root dnses (possibly in brussels), and get done with it. and then u.s. broadband, backbone providers can shove the fibers they laid in those senators asses. because they will be good for only doing that afterwards.

Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488703)

Yeah! Let's make our own Internet. With blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the Internet.

And the blackjack.

Ahh, screw the whole thing.

Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (4, Informative)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488739)

remember what happened to u.s. tourism after that patriot act shit was dropped in the congress ? u.s. tourism sector NEVER recovered from it.

The US tourism is recovering now, due to the falling dollar.

And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourcing (2, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488745)

You're joking, right? This would mean the end of Outsourcing U.S. I.T. jobs to India and other places. Someone in the U.S. would need to pick up the slack. There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.

Re:And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourci (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488833)

There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.

And in fascist police states, selling jackboots to jackboot-less thugs is a growth sector. The jingle in the pocket doesn't make the boot stamping on a face forever any more palatable.

And, oddly enough, we'd probably still outsource bootmaking. Cuz, you know, face-stomping has to be cost-effective to maximize shareholder value.

Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (3, Informative)

natedubbya (645990) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488747)

Umm, the u.s. tourism sector did recover. Now that the dollar is so low against the euro, european tourism is way up. Don't use the word "never", and check your facts.

Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489245)

Exactly. Why I went to the US this year just so they'd take my old laptop from me. I needed a good excuse to buy me new one.

"Honey, they took my computer! Now I'll have to buy a new one for work. Gosh, darn it..."

PPP (2, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488543)

Pay per packet plus lower ping times for people with the "Clear" pass.

Re:PPP (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488925)

Yeah, until someone steals a laptop with all the Clearpass data.

>obvious< (0, Redundant)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488553)

Your government hates things that it can't control or plausibly threaten to control.

happy to serve uncle sam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488555)

The telcos will only be too happy to help. Obtaining immunity obviously isn't a problem.

the quote at bottom right is appropriate enough: (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488563)

"Inform all the troops that communications have completely broken down."

Think so? (4, Insightful)

Panaqqa (927615) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488565)

And what happens if ISPs are ordered to block all encrypted packets for which the DHS doesn't hold the keys in escrow? And phone companies are ordered to block all unauthorized modem carriers? Difficult to get around restrictive "cyber laws" when the government can exercise control over the infrastructure.

Re:Think so? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489009)

And what happens if ISPs are ordered to block all encrypted packets for which the DHS doesn't hold the keys in escrow?

You use encryption that doesn't *look* encrypted. Slower, but that's the way of it.

Re:Think so? (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489261)

Difficult to get around restrictive "cyber laws" when the government can exercise control over the infrastructure.

Then we'll have to manage without infrastructure: neighbourhood wireless networks, sneakernet with Bluetooth phones and memory sticks, password-protected zip files sent over "authorized" IM networks. Maybe it's not exactly the bright cyber-future William Gibson had in mind but it still beats watching TV.

Frequent topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488641)

These guys [360is.com] often cover cyber terrorism in their macro-economic section on security. Other readers may find interesting.

AG.

Would this be enough to make us move? (5, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488651)

Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".

Is this any different? Are there any of us for whom this really *is* the straw that breaks the camel's back?

I just got back from Austria, and I've got to say, it's pretty fsck'ing nice over there.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (4, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488725)

Insert that old 'First they came for the...' thing here. People are creatures of habit and comfort. Unless someone comes into their house, brandishing a rifle or a club, most aren't going to react on that kind of a scale. They'll talk about it, but the logistics of moving out of your home country are extremely difficult to work through unless you're already mobile or have been planning such a thing for years.

Or.. (1)

gerf (532474) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488997)

If Congressmen start getting theirs, and their kids' laptops and iPods searched at the border for copyright violations, and summarily sued... or maybe to expedite this, a hacker illegally breaks into their systems and posts proof of their hypocrisy to the world.

I am not condoning the second method, however, and do not have anything resembling the skill to do so. (Please don't arrest me Republican Overlords!)

The new 'First they came for the...' thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489293)

Well, you asked for it... modifications appreciated:

First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't complain, because I believed in fighting for my freedom.
Then they came for the people with weapons of mass destruction, and I didn't complain, because I had no such weapons.
Then they came for the people who defied the law officers, and I didn't complain, because I knew the officers were the good guys.
Then they came for the outspoken people, and I didn't complain, because I always said the right words.
Then they came for the music pirates, and I didn't complain, because I owned all the music I had.
Then they came for the people with illegal content on their computers, and I didn't complain, because I'd never done anything wrong.
Then they came for my freedom, and I couldn't complain, because I had no freedom.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488777)

Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".

The first problem, even for those who are serious, is that those other places tend to either have similar restrictions, other restrictions which aren't similar but are just as bad or worse, or look ready to pass one or the other or both. The second problem is that immigration is difficult, particularly if you don't speak the language.

Most people, though, will tolerate nearly anything, provided it doesn't happen to them. And a good number will, even if it happens to them, still tolerate it and assume they deserved it. Orwell got it right; the future of government is a boot stomping on a human face, forever.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (1)

tylernt (581794) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488857)

Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".

Mainly it's the lack of anyplace better that's holding me here. I've yet to find a place that combines the equivalent of 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights in sufficient quantities.

If you know of any libertarian paradises though, please let me know.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (1)

a_real_bast... (1305351) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488987)

Try Finland; while the tax burden will make any libertarian's head explode, they seem to cover the specified amendments okay. They also have a history of being thoroughly uncomfortable people to pick a fight with (see "Winter War" for people doing to Russia what Russia would do to the Nazis). Plus, those taxes pay for nifty things like under-street heating.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489249)

> they seem to cover the specified amendments...

Oh really. Seems they have made it to gun licensing already, confiscation always comes next. Hate Speech laws are already on their books and arrests are being made so forget free speech there.

And thus the problem. The US is sliding down the slippery slope to a Worker's Paradise but everyone else seems to be ahead of us leaving nowhere to run.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489037)

've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving .... I just got back from Austria, and I've got to say, it's pretty fsck'ing nice over there.

Austria? Yeah, good choice. It's not like fascism had any roots there.

Godwin Jr's Law (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488695)

All sufficiently long forum threads about a policy where the US government might become involved shall include at least one reference to 9/11 and/or Al Qaida.

Re:Godwin Jr's Law (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488923)

Except that unlike Nazis, current US government policy is largely driven by 9/11 and/or al Qaeda, so the reference is much more apt.

Re:Godwin Jr's Law (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489043)

Except that unlike Nazis, current US government policy is largely driven by 9/11 and/or al Qaeda, so the reference is much more apt.

Not quote. Current US government policy is entirely driven by the military/oil/industrial complex, with 9/11 and/or al Qaeda used as the EXCUSE for the destruction of civil liberties in exchange for something that looks superficially like security. Big difference.

Re:Godwin Jr's Law (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489147)

Semantic games.

You can say that the policy is driven by the military industrial complex, with 9/11 and al Qaeda as the excuse. I can say that the policy is driven by 9/11 and al Qaeda, with the military industrial complex overseeing and guiding. Ultimately it's the same thing.

Re:Godwin Jr's Law (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489251)

It's hardly the same thing. One is a reaction to an event or organization, the other is a group of people in power to are just looking for an excuse - any excuse - to crack down on society so they can make more profit.

depressing (1)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488717)

hey everybody...
If I ignore this issue will it just go away? I am a typical American insensitive clod, so I was hoping I could use my usual tactics on this one...

excuse me, I hafta go watch some baseball.

US Missiles (1)

Pincus (744497) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488811)

2009 - e-9/11 hits
2010 - i-Patriot Act becomes law
2013 - Internet as we know it effectively dead
2014 - High speed satellite provider launches overseas in developed, unfriendly nation (China?)
2015 - US shoots down privately owned foreign satellites??

Re:US Missiles (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488919)

A couple weeks later in 2015: China flexes military muscle and knocks down 8 US satellites.

January 2016, World population: zero.

4081: World completely back to normal, sans man.

Re:US Missiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24488951)

you forgot

2016 - PROFIT!!!1one

Re:US Missiles (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489215)

There won't be an e-9/11. This is just hype. Nothing on the internet can cause thousands of people to die.
Oh wait, they weren't thinking about people where they?

My internet's down Hoss (2, Interesting)

c0d3r (156687) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488821)

There are plenty of places out in the country that does well with little internet. Only major cities that depend on external systems and greedy business people will be impacted.

Paranoid Linux is your friend (5, Interesting)

thesuperbigfrog (715362) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488875)

Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" describes a Linux distro called "Paranoid Linux" which has nice features for this kind of thing. Such as distro is already in the works: http://paranoidlinux.org/ [paranoidlinux.org]

Cyber 9/11? (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24488955)

What could possibly count as a cyber 9/11? Honestly, other then security holes that need to be patched and some government's website being hacked, there isn't much that can go wrong with the web that isn't already happening or has happened before.

Re:Cyber 9/11? (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489007)

That sounds so dirty.
"Wanna cyber 9/11?"

Re:Cyber 9/11? (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489115)

Here's what you could do:

1. Set the fecal chloroform counts for the reservoir monitoring systems at max. SCADA + Internet connection + SBO = Good Times.

2. Set every traffic light to green in all directions (or cycle the lights quickly enough to cause massive accidents)

3. Disrupt the trunking radio system (used by first responders). It's simple to make one, and only obscurity keeps bad guys from making an undetectable jammer. Worse, P25 (new US government mandate) requires Internet connectivity.

4. Overload a few older transformers like in Vancouver two weeks ago.

So what you've got now is the water supply shut off by the sensors, and traffic is so backed up with crashes that the engineers can't get to the site to reset the system. That gives you 2-3 days until people start dying off. Even if you get it fixed in a day, people will fucking panic like Home Depot shoppers in a flyover state.

The police, paramedics, fire, buses, etc can't co-ordinate anything since their radios aren't working.

Then the backup power goes out.

Good times.

Re:Cyber 9/11? (1)

naasking (94116) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489185)

Widespread cell network outages, telecommunication failures like 911 outages, power outages, stock exchange attacks. Need I go on?

Re:Cyber 9/11? (2, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489255)

The question is not whether a cyber 9/11 is possible but whether the press can hype it enough to make it look as bad.

seems kinda stupid... (1)

onionlee (836083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489029)

Team Terrorists - FINAL SCORE: Massive DNS Meltdown ****Bonus Round**** i-Patriot Act

all the more reason (1)

drDugan (219551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489057)

to (re)move the control of each piece of the Internet and each organization that manages Internet assignment and standards - and move them away from being controlled by any sovereign state (government), USA or other

comments like his underscore such hubris, ... to imagine that any single government could control or even direct the totality of human connection and communication

even worse, and more to the point for Clark and his ilk: such stupidity to think that under the fear-driven false guise of "protecting us" those charged specifically to support and defend the Constitution would restrict the actions and freedoms of the very people from which all their power derives. I'd like believe that accountability will come back into favor in '09

such a cyber9-11 would be most interesting if it happened and restricted the Internet because it would directly affect the one right left to USians that will (could) get them out of the hole of degrading personal rights they continue to slide into: assembly

Infowars Reported (1, Interesting)

AnyThingButWindows (939158) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489139)

Alex Jones has reported on this as well. As we all know, 9/11 was a "turn" for the worse in society. Another fake, "global" war to get the yuppies to submit to power, government lies, and propaganda. 9/11 was a false flag event, the same as the Gulf of Tonkin, which is now declassified, and has come out that Israel actually attacked the carrier.

What you will see, I would imagine is a false flag event, pulled off by those who are capable, and well paid, bring down the root servers. This has been demonstrated in the past, and is VERY possible, especially considering the recent DNS flaws that have spewed out in the media. They will come out, and say "Oh, we need Internet 2", and it will be totally censored. No porn. No free speech. And if you talk about a candidate, other than the 2 government run parties that are exactly the same, then you get unplugged. If you log on, without your DNA being uploaded, then they swat team you, and kill your family.

The way that criminal governments work, is problem, reaction, solution. They create a problem, judge the reaction, then pose as the saviors. Usually, they come up with a solution that will piss off a lot of people, and they do it to diminish freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion... the list goes on, and on. One day, just one day, you will be sitting there, wondering where all of your freedom went, while you are a slave on a global corporate plantation.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753 [infowars.com]

Endgame:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261 [google.com]

Have you read it? (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489179)

I want you to read the "PATRIOT Act" before you try to discuss it with me.
It's Public Law 107-56, easy to find, and not a difficult read.

I want you to tell me, specifically, what sections you disagree with, and why.

For the record, I have a few problems with the surveillance provisions, but it is a bigger problem that people who have not even read the Act, make comments about it as if it is somehow the source of all evil in the government. Such talk only serves to complicate things for those of us who take anti-government positions on various issues. And few of the pundits on either side of the argument seem to have much of a grasp on what the PATRIOT Act does or does not contain.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...