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!

McCain Asks For Committee On Wikileaks, Anonymous

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the meetings-fix-everything dept.

Government 268

Trailrunner7 writes "In the face of continued attacks on federal agencies and contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton and IRC Federal that do highly sensitive security work for the U.S. government, Sen. John McCain has asked Senate leaders to appoint a select committee to look into the attacks and data leaks that have plagued Washington throughout 2011. In a letter to Democrat leader Harry Reid and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, McCain (R-Ariz.) said that a temporary Senate committee is necessary in order to get a handle on all of the disparate cybersecurity legislation proposals and to address the threat posed by groups such as Anonymous, LulzSec and Wikileaks."

cancel ×

268 comments

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

Yep, a committee. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763652)

That oughta solve the problem, by garsh!

Re:Yep, a committee. (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 3 years ago | (#36764104)

"I truly believe the only way to ensure the protection of sensitive and valuable information from tampering or dissemination by unauthorized persons is a Select Committee,"

YEAH! ROCK ON OLD MAN!

Re:Yep, a committee. (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36764194)

I believe this poster fully describes the issue [despair.com] .

Re:Yep, a committee. (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | about 3 years ago | (#36764278)

As opposed to what? Crowd source? Group think?

Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (2)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#36763660)

He clearly knows the most about the internet out of all the senators, so unless he's part of the commitiee it will be a total farse!

Re:Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#36763778)

Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this!

Yep, from the underground

Re:Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (2)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#36763810)

He's with the tubes now.

Re:Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#36763794)

Ted Stevens is dead.

Re:Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763962)

Dig him up!
I bet he still knows just as much about the internet now as he always did!

Re:Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#36763808)

There's just one problem [wikipedia.org] with that idea.

Re:Ra.one (0)

kakarote (2294232) | about 3 years ago | (#36763836)

Re:Ra.one (1)

xiayou (2316372) | about 3 years ago | (#36764244)

We’ve created a memory device with the physical properties of Jell-O Yes, yes but which does it work better with: rum or vodka?

Re:Ted Stevens will get to the bottom of this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763900)

Senator Stevens died in plane crash on Aug 9, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/11crash.html
Further, he was already a former Senator after losing the 2008 election

umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763674)

"In a letter to Republican leader Harry Reid"

lol wat

Re:umm (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36763748)

Harry Reid has a high-pitched voice.

Re:umm (1)

iceaxe (18903) | about 3 years ago | (#36764086)

The post has the two gentlemen's positions reversed.

Did I really just call them "gentlemen"?

False Flag Working! (1, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 3 years ago | (#36763692)

"Oh my gawds these terrorist groups! The little children can't play on the internets - uh wait, there are no children in either of those groups, only Juvenile Terrorists, which are not children anymore!"

Re:False Flag Working! (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | about 3 years ago | (#36763888)

I've been wondering about the false-flag possibility, too. These recent high-profile "national security" hacks seem like just the perfect threat to justify the kind of internet regulation that certain quarters in government would like to see imposed anyway, and for their own purposes.

Re:False Flag Working! (1)

xeon13 (2268514) | about 3 years ago | (#36764016)

Re:their future (1)

essayservices (2242884) | about 3 years ago | (#36764148)

I've been saying this since the very beginning. All the hacks were a false flag operation by the government, PRECISELY TO ALLOW this kind of committee to be formed to pass more draconian laws about internet use, hacking, etc. LulzSec and those other groups aren't real, in that the people running them are working for the government. They may have enticed real hackers to join so they'd have people to jail later. It's all fake though. How is it that hackers that touch federal sites are typically in jail within a week, yet nobody has been taken down for the multiple federal site hacks that have happened? That's never happened in the history of hacking, yet somehow LulzSec does it along with 800 other hacks in a bizarrely short time frame. It's fake. Be careful.

Re:False Flag Working! (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | about 3 years ago | (#36764118)

If they really want to do something productive, they should investigate how it's possible that government contractors are so incompetent when it comes to computer security.

Re:False Flag Working! (4, Informative)

Translation Error (1176675) | about 3 years ago | (#36764132)

Except he's not talking about going after the evil terrorists. He's talking about coming up with plans to protect key systems from cyber attack

We must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more from a cyber attack.

and prevent leaks at the source.

developing adequate safeguards to detect and defeat any insider threat of disclosure of classified documents such as we experienced with the Wikileaks fiasco

In another letter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763696)

McCain asked that a target be mounted on his campaign servers so Anonymous, LutzSec, and Wikileaks would find it easier for their upcoming attacks...

What about republican traitors? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763698)

Somebody should assemble a committee to figure out why republicans insist on stepping on the country's neck every time they see some personal benefit from it.

Re:What about republican traitors? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763956)

How is it that a guy who probably doesn't bath regularly, alomost certianly drives a beat up VW covered is idiot stickers, attends portest rallies for any cause what-so-ever (and doesn't even know why, just wants to wave a sign saying "Bush=Hitler") and thinks tat everyone else owes him something like a place to live, food to eat and free beer, has access to a compter so he can post lame ass comments about a party he knows nothing about other than what he reads on the DailKos and DemocratMoronsUnderground.com?

Ohh...I know. Public libraries with free internet access.

Re:What about republican traitors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764262)

a party he knows nothing about other than what he reads on the DailKos and DemocratMoronsUnderground.com?

Does anyone know anything about the republicans anymore? It's like whack-a-mole except that they're busy whacking themselves. "What, bush's butt buddy created the TSA and installed his own company's scanners into all of the airports making himself millions of dollars? Well that's OK, because they're just RINOs so they don't count and they don't represent our party, except when Bush is the most awesomest Republican evar and his acts embiggen all of us and we should all strive to be like our hero Bush! You don't understand us! Nobody understands us!" (insert emo wailing and wrist slitting)

Tell you what, get your damn party in order, then tell us about how awesome you are.

Re:What about republican traitors? (1)

xiayou (2316372) | about 3 years ago | (#36764126)

Re:opinion (1)

essayservices (2242884) | about 3 years ago | (#36764224)

There's approximately 24 megabytes of data in a single ejaculation, that sounds related to a memory device that is soft and functions well in wet environments... sorry... oh my gods I'm sorry. I just HAD to go there. Also re-reading that, I think I need a prescription for Viagra.

Repub? (2)

Frohike66 (182338) | about 3 years ago | (#36763700)

Harry Reid is a Democrat, not a Republican

Difference being? (4, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#36763722)

In America, you have a choice between the party that works for one set of corporations, or the party that works for another set of corporations.

Re:Difference being? (4, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#36763800)

The set of corporate masters are not mutually exclusive, they overlap more than they do not.

Re:Difference being? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764218)

The set of corporate masters are not mutually exclusive, they overlap more than they do not.

And yet none will admit to that so nothing gets done in Washington. Enter the tea baggers who have their own agenda and now you have a massive clusterfuck in washington. I used to think that having more than two parties was a good idea but now I'm not so sure. Now I just want congress to drop the idealism and work together so this country crashes and burns. Shoehornjob

Re:Difference being? (4, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | about 3 years ago | (#36763802)

That is blatantly unfair and derogatory. Suggesting that the parties discriminate between which set of corporations they work for is ridiculous. All dollars are created equal.

Re:Difference being? (2)

foobsr (693224) | about 3 years ago | (#36764062)

All dollars are created equal.

Not quite yet, but soon, when the debt hits the fan and all those dollars will be created from thin air.

CC.

Re:Difference being? (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36764248)

Ahh, but they have to pick and choose between which corporations they get bought by. I think this scene from The Distinguished Gentleman explains it all:

TOMMY (Eddie Murphy) Sugar price supports. Where do you think I should be, Tommy?
O'CONNOR Shit -- makes no difference to me. If you're for 'em, I got money for you from my sugar producers in Louisiana and Hawaii. If you're against 'em, I got money for you from the candy manufacturers.
TOMMY You pick.
O'CONNOR Let's put you down as for. Now what about putting limits on malpractice awards?
TOMMY You tell me.
O'CONNOR Well, if you're for 'em, I got money from the doctors and insurance companies. If you're against 'em, I got money from the trial lawyers. Tell you what, let's say against. Now how about pizza?
TOMMY I'll stick with the salad.
O'CONNOR Not for lunch, shmuck, for PAC money. A lot of the frozen pizzas use phony cheese. There's a law pending requiring them to disclose it on their labels. Where do you stand?
TOMMY If I vote for the labels...then I get money from the dairy industry...
O'CONNOR Good...
TOMMY And if I vote against the labels, I get money from the frozen food guys.
O'CONNOR Excellent! And don't forget the ranchers, because they get hurt if pepperoni sales go down!
TOMMY A pepperoni lobby. I love this town.
O'CONNOR So which is it?
TOMMY Fuck the cheese people. Thanks to them my office smelled like smelt for a week.
O'CONNOR All right. For.
TOMMY So Tommy, tell me -- with all this money on every side, how does anything get done?
O'CONNOR It doesn't! That's the genius of the system!

Re:Difference being? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763806)

In America, you have a choice between the party that works for one set of corporations, or the party that works for one set of corporations.

Re:Difference being? (5, Interesting)

bit trollent (824666) | about 3 years ago | (#36763982)

Uh.. let's see...

The republican party is fighting to cut funding for important government programs while cutting taxes on the rich.

The other party is seeking to raise taxes on the rich to fund important government programs. Programs like pell grants, infrastructure, education, and health care.

Only a total fool wouldn't be able to tell the difference as they parties play a dangerous game of brinkmanship with our national credit rating.

People who don't know the difference between our conservative and progressive parties are part of the reason that our political system is so broken. Politicians are playing us for fools, because we are too ignorant to tell the difference.

Re:Difference being? (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#36764052)

The democrats are a conservative party. The republicans are a regressive party. We don't really have a progressive party.

amen. (0)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 years ago | (#36764108)

The democrats are a conservative party. The republicans are a regressive party. We don't really have a progressive party.

This.

Re:Difference being? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764240)

It's also important to note that Republicans never want to significantly cut military spending. They'd prefer to cut all social programs and redirect that money to their war profiteering friends/owners.

Re:Difference being? (2)

iceaxe (18903) | about 3 years ago | (#36764268)

While I sympathize with your point of view, and wish I could still believe the same, I think you give both parties too much credit.

Neither party gives a flying ____ about what happens to the people they claim to represent. While the noises that come out of their mouths may seem to be in support of or opposition to one idea or another, the truth is that every squeak, and every vote, is calculated for political value and nothing else at all.

One party is telling lies that appeal to one segment of the population, and the other is telling lies that appeal to a different segment. Both are acting for the sole purpose of gaining power for themselves, either in the form of a voting bloc of those they've fooled, or as a kickback percentage of the money gained by those who benefit from the actions of the politicians.

Both major parties, and the byzantine system of extra-constitutional legislative rules they've created to maintain the status quo, are irredeemably corrupt. I will welcome the day when both of these monstrosities collapse under the accumulated weight of their treasonous perfidy.

Re:Repub? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#36763738)

No problem, there is no difference between the two parties so their names can be used interchangeably.

Re:Repub? (1)

blackbeak (1227080) | about 3 years ago | (#36764034)

The two parties just have different dancing styles, it's the musicians we need to watch!

Re:Repub? (1)

Gunkerty Jeb (1950964) | about 3 years ago | (#36763742)

INdeed.

Re:Repub? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36763812)

Why ruin a good rant with facts.

Re:Repub? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763816)

Does it matter? The results are the same. LOL

Re:Repub? (1)

fortfive (1582005) | about 3 years ago | (#36763882)

I believe it was a Freudian slip, and/or subtle commentary.

Re:Repub? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 3 years ago | (#36763898)

Harry Reid is a Democrat, not a Republican

You're right, it should have read: "In a letter to fellow bureaucratic brother-from-another-party Harry Reid and one-eyed king of the blind minority Mitch McConnell..."

That looks right.

Re:Repub? (1)

Svippy (876087) | about 3 years ago | (#36763904)

Harry Reid is a Democrat, not a Republican

Also, the Republicans are the minority in the Senate. Woop woop woop. Sounds like a mishap.

Re:Repub? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763972)

I think you mean "Demican" or possibly "Republicrat". The two parties exist only to give the illusion of choice.

Re:Repub? (1)

bracher (33965) | about 3 years ago | (#36764066)

...and Mitch McConnell is _not_ the majority leader. Wishful thinking on the part of the submitter?

What? (1)

SwampChicken (1383905) | about 3 years ago | (#36763718)

If he's going to associate WikiLeaks with anonymous & LulzSec, then why not throw the United Nations into that mix as well. Damn pesky international bodies probing around in other peoples business... *wave fist*

Re:What? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#36763846)

If you'd read the fucking letter, you'd have seen that he didn't mention Anonymous or LulzSec.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763860)

If he's going to associate WikiLeaks with anonymous & LulzSec, then why not throw the United Nations into that mix as well. Damn pesky international bodies probing around in other peoples business... *wave fist*

Given that the UN named North Korea the chair of a committee on disarmament, and Libya the chair of a committee on human rights, putting the UN on the list of terrorist organizations would probably be about right.

Anonymous Coward with his double standards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764208)

Countries rotate being the chair of the various committees. Perhaps the AC believes that the UN should only let people chair committees if they agree with his politics.

Re:What? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36763872)

Because some times the UN is our puppet. I think that McCain generally likes the UN, more so than other Republicans, although I could be way off on this one.

not the best approach (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | about 3 years ago | (#36763724)

I think he would've had better luck just coming here and asking them kindly to stop rather than ticking them off. (I'm assuming some of those guys read /..) Not that that would stop them either, but they might put a positive spin on the data they release.

Re:not the best approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763818)

(I'm assuming some of those guys read /..)

I thought for a second that you were talking about the senators, and I was puzzled.

Credibility (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36763734)

From the guy who thought Sarah Palin would make a good vice president. Why do people even bother to listen to him anymore. The country is bankrupt, but he thinks it can afford yet another committee.

Re:Credibility (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 3 years ago | (#36763994)

From the guy who thought Sarah Palin would make a good vice president.

I remember hearing that Sarah was forced onto him and he was not happy with that choice at all. I listened to McCains campaign, and while I disagreed with his viewpoint I did respect his intelligence and how he went about doing things.

Re:Credibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764144)

I remember hearing that Sarah was forced onto him and he was not happy with that choice at all.

Uh, yeah, right.

Where did you hear that? From some embarrassed conservative talk show host, furiously backpedalling after Sarah Palin had become America's laughingstock?

Re:Credibility (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 3 years ago | (#36764150)

Surely that's worse. I'm not sure you want a guy who just does what he is told even when he thinks it is the wrong thing to do running the country. Will he keep doing that when he's running the show?

Re:Credibility (1)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | about 3 years ago | (#36764022)

Why do people even bother to listen to him anymore.

Do you really have to ask that?

A depressingly large segment of this country is like this [youtube.com] . And you really are surprised that these people are listening to McCain?

More imporantly (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 3 years ago | (#36763780)

I ask,, WHERE is my SOUP??!?!?!?!?!?! Mcain hiditin the bus, when

Re:More imporantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764008)

No soap, radio!

It does hit on one thing (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36763790)

The summary does hit on one thing that is a systemic problem in Washington, a myriad of separate bills to address an issue. Each of these bills probably only focuses on a few things (if you remove the pork and vote buying crap) but when all are taken together you end up with one giant confusing mess.

Not rocket science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764036)

The more laws, the more bills, the more expenses, the bigger your budget. The bigger your budget, the better positioned you are to exploit that cash flow for personal gain.

Am I implying that the people at the top of the power pyramid are nothing but crooks working precisely for themselves, not "the people" as the age-old claim goes? You're god damn right I am.

Ha ha ha (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#36763820)

a temporary Senate committee...

Somebody's looking for some cheap laughs

Re:Ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763968)

That is like a temporary budget cut.... you know, the type, that 3 years later you can't untemporary

Re:Ha ha ha (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36764242)

Is that like a temporary tax?

Time would be better spent... (2)

javakah (932230) | about 3 years ago | (#36763828)

Looking into why we are paying so much money to security contractors that can't even secure their own servers.

Re:Time would be better spent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763928)

Time might be better spent in figuring out how to make our country not default in three weeks.

Re:Time would be better spent... (1)

jbrandv (96371) | about 3 years ago | (#36764152)

Yea, let's put it off until the debt is over what 20 trillion? It is clear to me that we are going to default at sometime in the future. Why not get it over with? We are printing money like mad and borrowing money from the Chinese to make interest only payments. How's that same scheme working on your credit cards? Oh, I know, let's use our Visa card to pay our Master card bill and pay that with our Discover card and pay that .... no problem here. Sorry for the rant.

Re:Time would be better spent... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764236)

First, measuring the national debt as a raw number of dollars is useless. You know the value of those change over time? You're not even adjusting for inflation, let alone measuring debt as % of GDP.

Second, you don't pay off all your credit cards right after you lose your job. We need to operate in a deficit when we're in a recession and then (and this is critical) pay back the debt when we're not in a recession. Trouble is, we don't have the discipline to do that second bit. What happened last time we actually were in the black on spending? I remember: "Use a budget surplus to pay back the debt? Fuck that! Tax cut!"

How'd he find out? (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | about 3 years ago | (#36763830)

I guess his "email girl" finally told him about it?

*makes popcorn* (1)

Rix (54095) | about 3 years ago | (#36763842)

This should be entertaining.

First question on the agenda: (2)

seanadams.com (463190) | about 3 years ago | (#36763858)

What are teh lulz? Why would anybody do this just for them?

Re:First question on the agenda: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763984)

War on lulz. I can see it coming...

How about a committee... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36763878)

...to evaluate why a bunch of internet Yahoos often with basic security tools are able to cause so much havoc? ...Oh. Right. Because this would expose the fact that it isn't that Anonymous and those other groups are Uberhackers, it's that their targets are, if not incompetent, then given leadership that does a damn fine simulation.

After all, it's easier to blame the scaryevilsocialistanarchist hackers then to fess up to the fact that you've ignored computer security so badly, you've got the equivalent of a rusty gate that is so decrepit that even if you WANTED to close it, the hinges are rusted and stuck. Instead you're gonna have to pay significant money to rebuild things so they actually work. ...What's that giant sucking sound? Oh. Right. That's internet freedom, disappearing into a pit of "anti-terror" legislation.

Horrible summary (4, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#36763924)

The summary is 10% facts and 90% moronic rambling by the submitter. If you actually read the letter, you'll see that McCain was specifically referring to insider threats such as the Bradley Manning case. He doesn't mention Anonymous or LulzSec at all.

Re:Horrible summary (4, Interesting)

zill (1690130) | about 3 years ago | (#36764136)

McCain:

I write to renew my request that the Senate create a temporary Select Committee on Cyber Security and Electronic Intelligence Leaks. I feel this Select Committee is necessary in order to develop comprehensive cyber security legislation and adequately address the continuing risk of insider threats that caused thousands of documents to be posted on the website Wikileaks.

Emphasis mine.

I wish there was a "Parent is right. This story is 50% bullshit and 100% trolling. Let's delete it." mod. When 5 people use that mod then the story gets automatically deleted.

LulzSec (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | about 3 years ago | (#36764046)

The most important question to ask about LulzSec is which branch of the U.S. government is responsible for it. Is it the NSA, the CIA, or the military. The most important question about information security in regards to WikiLeaks is why doesn't the U.S. government secure it's information. Manning just downloaded everything. He didn't do anything special.

Re:LulzSec (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 3 years ago | (#36764138)

They're worried about the problem with Anonymous and LulSec? If they can break your security you should assume that any foreign enemies of the state have at least the same capabilities and haven't been notifying you of their success. Secure your data or get it off public networks. WikiLeaks is a separate matter, but again it could be handed to your enemies alone rather than the world in general.

FALSE FLAG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764094)

I've been saying this since the very beginning.

All the hacks were a false flag operation by the government, PRECISELY TO ALLOW this kind of committee to be formed to pass more draconian laws about internet use, hacking, etc.

LulzSec and those other groups aren't real, in that the people running them are working for the government. They may have enticed real hackers to join so they'd have people to jail later. It's all fake though.

How is it that hackers that touch federal sites are typically in jail within a week, yet nobody has been taken down for the multiple federal site hacks that have happened? That's never happened in the history of hacking, yet somehow LulzSec does it along with 800 other hacks in a bizarrely short time frame.

It's fake. Be careful.

Examine the phrase "freedom of the press" (3, Insightful)

X86Daddy (446356) | about 3 years ago | (#36764116)

We keep seeing court cases and lively debate over "Freedom of the Press," usually with regards to whether this blogger or that product reviewer etc... have a right to say what they say without "press credentials" or a large corporate news organization backing them, etc... A lot of self-professed "patriotic" US citizens want Wikileaks destroyed.

So where does the phrase "Freedom of the Press" come from? First Amendement of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At the time this was written, what was "the press?" What was the relationship between the authors and founders of this country and "the press?" The press was a nifty machine that several of these men owned... a printing press. They used these devices to take their speech and propogate it further than mere voice could. They used this kind of speech to foment revolution against an unjust government and the press was a vital tool in this effort. Upon establishing a new government, they sought to extend that protection to all citizens.

So, when someone issues communications through technology, that is the press protected by the 1st Amendement.

Re:Examine the phrase "freedom of the press" (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 3 years ago | (#36764288)

>"So, when someone issues communications through technology, that is the press protected by the 1st Amendement."

Post of the Month! Good examination.

I hope for some good... (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 3 years ago | (#36764122)

A committee means one thing -- more laws. We all know about the bad laws that can be passed (more DRM, tossing some guy who logs on as his ex on FB in prison for 50 years, etc.) However, maybe some good can come out of it:

1: Money spent to have on staff more blackhats/whitehats. Perhaps we need another branch of the Armed Services just dedicated to intrusion prevention and hardening?

2: Certifications for cloud providers. This would include the government stepping in and either erasing or physically destroying all the cloud storage media if the provider got shut down, went bankrupt, got sold to a foreign company, etc. This way, even if the company tanked, all client data would be destroyed, so unlike now, the client data can't just be handed to the next owner of the servers for them to do what they want. The certifications would also include physical inspection, network inspection, host inspection, process inspection, tiger team testing, etc. We do this with hardware and software (FIPS, Common Criteria, EAL), why not cloud computing?

3: Funding for US fab technology for sensitive components like TPMs, firewalls, and other items. This way, there is solid knowledge that an Elbonian backdoor isn't waiting for just the right time to shut down a router or allow intruders in.

4: Funding for a B2B backbone infrastructure where it is preplanned what machines communicate to each other. This way, a bank's computer can send info to a credit card processor, but can't send anything to a baseball card shop unless they have a prior relationship. Preferably have this on separate fiber than the regular Internet. This way, critical business items can be isolated from Internet escapades. Think NIPRNet or SIPRNet, but for businesses.

5: Funding to work on a standard like VNC/Citrix/MS Terminal Server, so that people traveling do not require physical access to data, just access to a terminal server. This way, a blackhat has to compromise a locked down terminal server before they can get to the juicy stuff like Exchange or the like.

6: Grants to universities for better OS and hardware security models. Some computers used to have two addresses for RAM, one just for data, one instructions, and never did they meet. Things like that would be transparent to the user, but would greatly increase security. Same with operating systems that could hand Web browsers privileges by window/tab, so that a compromised tab couldn't get to the tab right by it that the user is doing banking with. Designing machines from the ground up to treat all Web content as hostile would greatly reduce the amount of malware floating around, just like firewalls have reduced incoming attacks.

7: A hardened device for storing passwords similar to a HSM for public keys. This would be extremely useful in LDAP setups as well as websites that have user accounts. A hacked server does not mean wholesale user compromise.

8: A standard TPM that can be added to all computers, but may or not be present. This would allow computers to have a TPM card dropped in if someone wanted it, but it wouldn't present, so the DRM writers couldn't force gamers to use it for additional lockdown.

9: Funding to design a standardized filesystem/LVM similar to ZFS, except that it is not patent encumbered, and can be used by all and sundry, either with all features, or a subset. The only filesystem across platforms these days is either FAT/FAT32, or the CD-ROM format. The reason this would increase security is that tools that can be used on many platforms can identify issues and fix them, especially at the LUN level (pop a snapshot of a LUN, have the SAN scan for viruses to find rootkits that the infected machines can't detect.)

These may be expensive, but at least some of the stuff would at least help things in a substantial manner. Passing more laws with longer prison terms will do jack squat for security overall, except make the private prison owners richer. You have to fight technical battles with technology.

WOW so this is what they call... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 3 years ago | (#36764134)

...Transparency...... We can all see right through this...

A Committee? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 3 years ago | (#36764146)

A committee to do -what- exactly? It sounds like a "group of Good 'Ol Boys to handle whoever we suspect of this, without proof, without judicial oversight, in any manner we choose"...

I would be outraged, but who didn't see this coming from the GOP boys?

Their tagline must be "We can't figure out how they're doing it, and we don't know who's doing it, but if we start locking up and executing folks who we THINK did it, maybe they'll get scared and stop."

McCain, et al: Perhaps if you weren't corrupt right-winger pieces of shit, people wouldn't feel the need to hack your stuff. End of line.

McCain = incompetent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764164)

Anyone who is stupid enough to have chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate
is not qualified to make decisions which are any more important than which brand
of toilet paper to choose.

Can't wait to see what Anonymous or LulzSec finds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764182)

Can't wait to see what Anonymous or LulzSec finds out about these new committee members, McCain couldn't of painted a bigger, redder bulls-eye.

Not exactly the person I want spear-heading this (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 3 years ago | (#36764198)

Most of Washington is pretty clueless when it comes to technology in general. Hell, that goes for most of the populous.
But congress specifically is atrociously bad. And I think it's mostly an age factor. They simply didn't grow up with this stuff. They're rooted in the old ways. McCain is a fine guy. I didn't vote for him, but he's a good guy to have in congress. I just wouldn't trust him with handling this sort of problem. In the least.

Ok, case in case in point, he doesn't understand network neutrality. The way he talks about it, NN is stricly regulatory legislature. He doesn't understand that NN is the defacto way that the internet has functioned since it's inception. The debate is whether we should enforce that performance in regulations, but he never made that distinction. And he probably has these misconception simply because lobbyist are the ones that explained it to him. Or explained it to the person who explained it to him.

Republican Leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764204)

I would just like to point out that Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader of the Democratic Party.

Et Tu John? (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | about 3 years ago | (#36764216)

He damn well better demand an investigation of News Corp. too. Only fair, O'Reilly.

Well, it's nice to know that McCain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764228)

is focusing on the problems of 6 months ago rather than the problems of today and next month. But I guess we ought to be happy he caught up to this century at least...

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36764252)

This is a great post; it was very informative. I look forward in reading more of your work. Also, I made sure to bookmark your website so I can come back later. I enjoyed every moment of reading it. internet marketing
testking [testsking.com]

WHBT. WHL. HAND. (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 3 years ago | (#36764266)

I can't believe this got posted to the front page. I really can't. If you look at the Slashdot Guide to Trolling, it has many of the elements - intentionally false information, baseless claims, and states things the linked article says nothing about.

First, Harry Reid is a democrat, not republican, and the letter does not refer to Anonymous or any other organization. It talks only about inside threats such as the Bradley Manning case.

Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick, don't the editors even do a tiny bit of summary fact checking before posting this drivel?

How About... (1)

Hamfist (311248) | about 3 years ago | (#36764298)

Stop doing so many things that will be embarrassing if exposed to the light of day.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>