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!

NYC Police Comm'r: Privacy Is 'Off the Table' After Boston Bombs

timothy posted about a year ago | from the for-your-own-safety dept.

Crime 508

An anonymous reader writes "New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly thinks that now is a great time to install even more surveillance cameras hither and yon around the Big Apple. After the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaev brothers were famously captured on security camera footage and thereby identified. That just may soften up Americans to the idea of the all-seeing glass eye. 'I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table,' Kelly gloats."

cancel ×

508 comments

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

Who watches the watchers.... (5, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#43557421)

... drinking big gulp sugary drinks?

Don't bring NCIS into this business! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557625)

YOU LEAVE ABBY OUT OF THIS!

no problem (5, Insightful)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#43557455)

as long as camera's are also installed inside police department in every office and interrogation room and are completely accessible by public.
  'I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table,'

That will not happen. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about a year ago | (#43557723)

When they talk about "privacy" they mean the privacy of the people who are not the police and not the politicians. They still get all the privacy they want.

Because of, you know, "national security" and "terrorists".

Re:That will not happen. (4, Interesting)

Raisey-raison (850922) | about a year ago | (#43557851)

I really hope they don't put up ever more cameras. We don't need them. Crime has been falling since 1988 and the US murder rate is around 5.4 / 100,000 people. And that is close to its all time low. And terrorism is rare and unlikely to kill or hurt anyone. When can we start rolling out policy based on data and evidence not on fear?

As far as cameras looking at police officers. We need a lot more of that. Police routinely 'beat people up' and conduct illegal searches. They need to be put on a short leash.

Re:That will not happen. (4, Insightful)

egamma (572162) | about a year ago | (#43558113)

I really hope they don't put up ever more cameras. We don't need them. Crime has been falling since 1988 and the US murder rate is around 5.4 / 100,000 people. And that is close to its all time low. And terrorism is rare and unlikely to kill or hurt anyone. When can we start rolling out policy based on data and evidence not on fear?

As far as cameras looking at police officers. We need a lot more of that. Police routinely 'beat people up' and conduct illegal searches. They need to be put on a short leash.

You provided the per-capita murder rate. Can you also provide the per-capita for people beat up by police and for illegal searches?

Re:That will not happen. (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about a year ago | (#43558157)

You provided the per-capita murder rate. Can you also provide the per-capita for people beat up by police and for illegal searches?

According to publicly available police records, both rates have been at or below zero since 1776.

Re:That will not happen. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#43557877)

Because of, you know, "national security" and "terrorists".

Also because being under the public eye all the time might be intimidating to police officers.

Yes, I've heard that argument used.

Re:no problem (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year ago | (#43557757)

If I ever get arrested for something, I certainly do not want people to be able to bring up the video. Now, if you said that the videos were to be stored somewhere the police have no access, perhaps the Consumer Advocate's Office, I agree with you 100%. That way, the video is available should the police do something they should not be doing.

Re:no problem (-1, Flamebait)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43557991)

Don't commit crimes, it's that simple. If you're falsely arrested or have your rights violated, that can translate into a lawsuit for you especially if there's video evidence.

Re:no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558069)

You are assuming that the police only ever arrest criminals.

Re:no problem (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43558131)

If I ever get arrested for something, I certainly do not want people to be able to bring up the video.

You would if you were innocent.

Re:no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557791)

Personally, I'm more for "as long as they are limited to public spaces only, and can be monitored by citizens."

Re:no problem (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43557799)

Question: Would more cameras have *prevented* the bombing? Because that's the only acceptable reason.

Most of the photos used to identify them were taken by the public.

Re:no problem (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year ago | (#43557933)

Question: Would putting everyone in handcuffs when they leave their homes have prevented the bombing? Because that's the only acceptable reason.

Re:no problem (1, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#43557965)

Question: Would more cameras have *prevented* the bombing?

It did prevent it.

You're referring to the one in Time Square that these fine peace-loving immigrants were planning to do next, I assume?

Re:no problem (3, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year ago | (#43558129)

So batting .500 is acceptable.

Ok. just trying to understand the expectation here. If I tolerate the expansion of surveillance, I can hope to be the second target for a group. If I'm the first, well, my sacrifice may be someone else's salvation.

Ah yes, the difference between prevention and prosecution. Is this worth the infringement? I vote no, come back with a prevention plan.

But I live and work in the Phoenix area, and we don't expect the Muslims to bomb us. Look for the illegal immigration advocates to do that here, more likely, though so far they have avoided such overt violence.

And keep the flames coming. We're used to the heat.

Re:no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558051)

The cameras prevented the next bombing - the bombers were taken because of camera footage. They did not get the chance to be serial killers.

Re:no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558085)

Question: Would more cameras have *prevented* the bombing? Because that's the only acceptable reason.

Most of the photos used to identify them were taken by the public.

It prevented further bombings. And with definitive evidence as to the bombers' identities figured out quickly by trained individuals who actually know what they're doing, it also held off a witch hunt long enough to catch the real bombers without losing anyone a bunch of bored anonymous teens thought would be amusing to watch die at the hands of a frothing mob.

Sorry the world isn't so cartoonishly simple and can't be viewed in terms of "either this immediately leads to a flawless utopia or it's not worth even thinking about", but sometimes the only thing you can do is prevent an unpredictable problem from getting worse.

Re:no problem (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43557833)

No, sorry. Making it mutual doesn't make it any better. My privacy is mine, taking it away because of a bombing where three people died is ridiculous. That's a tiny fraction of violent deaths in halfway decently sized towns.

If that's the reason for more invasion in privacy, then sorry, commissioner, but I'm far from convinced. I'd rather die in my boots than live on my knees. And your country was founded by people who thought exactly that, or they wouldn't have started the rebellion in the first place.

If anything, commissioner, you're a disgrace for your position and what it stands for.

Re:no problem (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43557949)

You have no privacy in public spaces.

So pitting camera in PUBLIC space is, by definition NOT an invasion of privacy.

If you argument was that it has a chilling effect on normal public discourse, I would agree. The privacy argument? it's just stupid.

Re:no problem (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year ago | (#43557987)

The point is that any argument against recording the police is equally applicable to recording the rest of us. There might be people who use videos of the police to do harm? There are police officers who will use videos of the public to do harm. The police might have valuable information that should not be made public? We have valuable information that we cannot trust the police with.

As always, the NYPD wants to have special privileges that the rest of NYC does not have.

Re:no problem (1, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#43558079)

I'd rather die in my boots than live on my knees.

Excellent choice of words [google.com] there. But like most internet tough guys you've never been in anything worse than a schoolyard punch-up, and until you have it's all big talk.

Re:no problem (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#43557951)

Kind of sensationalistic on their part, they were caught AFTER the fact. Big Deal. They get a reckoning with the state, and maybe a some justice is served but the reason for the cameras is really deterrence.

Re:no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558115)

They were caught before the Times Square bombing, and would not have been if not for all the cameras all around us.

Idiots bleating about privacy in public spaces are a waste of all our time. Let me know when the government installs cameras inside people's homes.

Re:no problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558039)

In the interrogation room? That might interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial will be the objection from the defendant: the interrogating officer.

Re:no problem (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43558177)

as long as camera's are also installed inside police department in every office and interrogation room and are completely accessible by public.

Why? No-one's proposing to put cameras in your home or office. They're proposing cameras in public places where people can already publicly gather and watch things with their eyes. Planning to do something you don't want people to know about? There are plenty of places more suitable than the middle of Times Square - with or without cameras.

Rights are off the table (5, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43557469)

Never mind privacy, all of your rights are off the table. I imagine that fighting this is a bit like fighting windmills, but all this oppression does is it creates more negativity and more negativity will cause more violence.

elegant phrase coined from elsewhere.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557533)

the cost of security is a reduced tolerance for the risks that make life great

What we learned... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557471)

What we learned from Boston was that there is no reason for centralized surveillance. Privately owned cameras (around businesses) provided enough coverage. And the police were then able to provide warrants to acquire the video. It worked perfectly from a privacy standpoint and in providing necessary information to law enforcement.

The Claim Is That There Could Be Prevention (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#43557677)

What we learned from Boston was that there is no reason for centralized surveillance. Privately owned cameras (around businesses) provided enough coverage. And the police were then able to provide warrants to acquire the video. It worked perfectly from a privacy standpoint and in providing necessary information to law enforcement.

To clarify his point (yours is valid but you're not addressing his claims fully):

Could more cameras in New York City help prevent attacks like the one at the Boston Marathon? That's what Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the NYPD is looking into.

The department already uses so-called smart cameras that hone in on unattended bags, and set off alarms.

Emphasis mine. I totally agree with you but the argument here is that they could prevent attacks. I find that argument specious and foolhardy in that a bomb could be disguised as anything and a suicide bomber (as these individuals clearly had no intention of surviving a police encounter) would simply continue to wear the explosive into the crowd. I think they need to reevaluate what little benefit it would provide against the massive issues and rights violations it could cause system-wide.

Re:The Claim Is That There Could Be Prevention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557809)

I find that argument specious and foolhardy in that a bomb could be disguised as anything and a suicide bomber (as these individuals clearly had no intention of surviving a police encounter) would simply continue to wear the explosive into the crowd. I think they need to reevaluate what little benefit it would provide against the massive issues and rights violations it could cause system-wide.

The "boston bombers" had 4 days with which they could have done *anything*, including running very far away, planting more bombs, "suiciding" etc. but they didnt, they instead just dicked around until they got caught, not really the thing someone serious about terror would do. This tells me that there is at least a "low hanging fruit" of destructive individuals who could be defended against with more simple means, like bag spotting or individual profiling that can be done with cameras.

Re:The Claim Is That There Could Be Prevention (2)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#43557813)

I think they need to reevaluate what little benefit it would provide against the massive issues and rights violations it could cause system-wide.

You're assuming that the massive issues and rights violations are an unintended consequence, rather than the goal.

Obviously cops want to be able to sit in a nice warm control room with a bag of donuts all day watching people on cameras, rather than going out on the streets.

Re:The Claim Is That There Could Be Prevention (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#43557895)

Obviously cops want to be able to sit in a nice warm control room with a bag of donuts all day watching people on cameras, rather than going out on the streets.

What? You mean like the TSA [vimeo.com] ? (probably NSFW)

And Yet ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557473)

And yet they want to hide/control the information about their 'stop and frisk' policies, which mosques they are watching and/or taping, and all their other secrets.

So I guess they think secrets are OK for them but not for the people they want to keep secrets from.

How does this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557499)

How are cameras in public places going to stop bombs? Sure it may help in catching criminals, but the damage has already been done. Maybe we should require background checks on people purchasing black duffel bags?

Re:How does this work? (1)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43557593)

Maybe we should require background checks on people purchasing black duffel bags?

And nails. I hear nails were used in the bomb, so let's require a special permit for anyone purchasing more than 10 nails at a time...

Re:How does this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557899)

And nails. I hear nails were used in the bomb, so let's require a special permit for anyone purchasing more than 10 nails at a time...

Good idea. That'll solve the unemployment crisis.

Re:How does this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557721)

The story I'm reading all over is that these guys were about to bomb NYC next. So, I think the logic is, while the camera's didn't stop the Boston bombing, they did help catch the guys very quickly and prevent the next bombing.

Re:How does this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558137)

Is that what they said that he said?

Re:How does this work? (1)

BattleApple (956701) | about a year ago | (#43557863)

How are cameras in public places going to stop bombs? Sure it may help in catching criminals, but the damage has already been done. Maybe we should require background checks on people purchasing black duffel bags?

FTFA:

The NYPD is touting its use of the so-called smart cameras that have been used for nearly a decade in Lower Manhattan to identify potential threats such as unattended bags left for too long.

Reasonable expectation of privacy (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43557507)

On the one hand, this is the U.S. and we have a 4th amendment to our constitution, that does being secure in ones person in addition to papers and effects, which draws a pretty clear line(though not clear enough) about when a warrant is required. On the other hand, if you expect to have privacy on the streets of New York City you're dangerously crazy.

It just leaves the open question of whether there's a limit of what we'll late the state do beyond what we'll let the public at large do.

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557805)

I think people always misininterpret this.
I do not care about privacy whan I am out in public. I care about anonymity when I'm out in public.
What these tools want is to know who you are while out an about on private business.
Fuck them.

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557841)

Exactly. If a camera on a public street is a violation of your rights, then shouldn't everyone have to cover their eyes too?

Since the ones we have were sufficient... (5, Insightful)

NixieBunny (859050) | about a year ago | (#43557509)

Since the cameras we have in place already were sufficient to identify the suspects, we obviously need more cameras.
We call this "logic".

Re:Since the ones we have were sufficient... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43557553)

But if I recall, those were private cameras, from a store.

They cooperated with police, and gave them the footage. I doubt very much the police would have been able to demand it.

Re:Since the ones we have were sufficient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557821)

Boston. New York. Two different places. But maybe you're saying we already have the same number of cameras in NY as there are in Boston?

Re:Since the ones we have were sufficient... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558111)

I don't know what bubble you're living in but most of the official footage was blurry and cameras not placed right. We call that needing more cameras and better quality ones at best. Wasted valuable time in trying to get spectators photos or waiting on HD photos to go through.

Privacy or Protection... (3, Interesting)

DiEx-15 (959602) | about a year ago | (#43557511)

You chose.

Frankly though, why bother with CCTV when most people have cell phones with cameras? Instead of a governmental body being Big Brother, the citizens of the society do the monitoring for them?

Re:Privacy or Protection... (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#43557653)

1. Your fallacy is assuming Privacy is mutually exclusive with Protection. It is not.

2. This issue has already been discussed to death a thousand times before:

      "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Which is better know as:

* Those who would trade a little bit of freedom for temporary safety deserve neither.
* They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
* Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
  -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin [wikiquote.org]

Re:Privacy or Protection... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43558001)

And it's a logical fallacy.

Re:Privacy or Protection... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557717)

Once they come for everyones guns you won't have a choice. NYS is one of the worst.

Re:Privacy or Protection... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557755)

Are you suggesting giving the authorities live streaming video from your phone every time you record a video?

Re:Privacy or Protection... (1)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43557849)

Are you suggesting giving the authorities live streaming video from your phone every time you record a video?

They do this, and they're gonna get some rather interesting videos from me that they'd rather not watch...

Re:Privacy or Protection... (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43557793)

"Frankly though, why bother with CCTV when most people have cell phones with cameras? Instead of a governmental body being Big Brother, the citizens of the society do the monitoring for them?"

Soon everybody will be wearing Google Glasses and this will be obsolete.

The CCTV will only be for cases where a bomb detonates and nobody is there to get hurt.

Yeah Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557519)

My chances of getting killed by a cop are greater than getting killed in a bombing/mass shooting. I'm pretty comfortable with those odds and really don't think that the added security is worth giving up what little privacy is left to us.

Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557527)

If there is only one thing you should take away from these events, it is that the business of government benefits greatly from them. Shortly after 9/11, I realized that the event was the best thing that has happened to government in decades. Each year since then we have witnessed more of the same cycle: disaster strikes, power and revenue justified. Disaster strikes, more power and revenue justified.

If you think the elite few at the top of the pyramid don't realize and take advantage of this, you're dreaming.

No more PR speak? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557529)

He doesn't even bother trying to make it sound good...

No, it really hasn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557535)

...been taken off the table. You're just a cynical ass who thinks you'll face less resistance during this time of heightened emotions.

The whole idea that people who are interested in personal privacy are against personal security is absurd. There are many fronts that we fight on to prevent having a police state. That said, police are an enormous benefit to society, their bravery and dedication is often amazing and well in excess of what their salaries should command. The idea that they can't do their jobs well without total country-wide video surveillance shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what makes them valuable to society. I would much rather have a physical police officer come by my business once per day at random than have a computer-watched video camera pointing at my door 24/7 and no police visiting. So too would most of the world.

Despite how the accountants of the world would like to optimise it, police work is still a people business.

Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557537)

If it means we can stop paying asshats like him and replace them with cameras, I'm all for it. It's the smugness and self-ingratiation that I can do without. It's not like we live in a world of privacy anyway, so I'd like for him to live on this side of the fence for a while before he opens his big yap about surveillance again.

Terrorists wins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557555)

The terrorist should love seeing that their stupid acts pay out.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
- Benjamin_Franklin

Slashdot admins are the criminals... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557557)

* Breaking news: corrupt Slashdot administration attempted to ban me for blowing the whistle on their illegal activities, while not banning the criminal who stalks, harasses, and impersonates me. Whistleblower abuse is a federal felony. Lunatic Slashdot admin's have been owned by me in so many tech debates that they conspire with criminals to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts and censor me. Jealousy at it's finest.

=> Lawsuit's and criminal prosecution against Slashdot are now inevitable. Moderation+posting records will be sequestered and anyone acting aginst me will be dealt with permanently.

Previous notice:

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 330++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:

---

A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 330 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here

---

(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).

APK

P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 330++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:

--

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...

---

20++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...

AND

2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.

----

Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:

----

1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...

----

First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths

====

The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of

There are bad people doing bad things (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about a year ago | (#43557567)

Therefore, when we are forcibly reminded that there are bad people doing bad things, we should limit the liberties of everyone. This guy is a moron and should not be in a position of power.

Huge Difference (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#43557569)

Kelly dismisses critics who argue that increased cameras threaten privacy rights, giving governments the ability to monitor people in public spaces.

“The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”

There's a stark difference between a store knowing I am in their store and a centralized location storing all of my visits. And then there's an even further jump when it's a government doing that. I'm fine that I go into Gamestop and Gamestop gets tapes of me looking at games. I'm fine that I go to Chipotle and there's a camera on the cash register. I'm fine that I then walk by the entrance to an electronics store and I'm on their cameras passing by. That's cool, if they want to put together the odd footage they have of me going there, I'm not really concerned about that. And that's the stuff that ended up helping catch the Boston suspects.

I'm not okay when one centralized location stores that data and my complete movements can be tracked. If a Gamestop employee got my address from a purchase and wanted to search my house, he'd have only the time I'm on camera to do it. If my whole trip is detailed, it could be done covertly quite easily.

Decentralizing the stores of this video information has its own merits and disadvantages but I think there is a very small group of people that are uneasy with being videotaped at a grocery store by the grocery store yet a large group of people (once they think about what their tax dollars are being spent on) that would be uneasy about a government system centralizing this and putting individuals in charge of it.

What worked here is that businesses realized they each had a piece of the puzzle to solve a heinous crime. This commissioner's claim that technology exists that would have prevented these attacks had it been a government controlled and centralized effort is largely horseshit and what benefits that pretends to provide are insignificant compared to the possible evils it could unleash.

By the way, if this topic interests you then you should be watching Germany closely [www.dw.de] .

Re:Huge Difference (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#43557925)

Outstanding post. Well presented and covers an important aspect that is often overlooked. Thank you!

Re:Huge Difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557963)

Kelly dismisses critics...

That's how I like to win arguments as well. I also like to put my fingers in my ear and go 'la la la la'.

Any public official that can't argue both sides of a debate is woefully under qualified for the job.

Cemeras dont stop crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557575)

All Cameras do, is help catch the criminals after the crime has already been committed.

Its not much of a deterrent. Convenience stores have cameras, but it doesn't stop them from being robbed all the time.

Re:Cemeras dont stop crime. (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43557855)

"Its not much of a deterrent. Convenience stores have cameras, but it doesn't stop them from being robbed all the time."

How about an app that recognizes policemen and immediately begins recording what they do and send the data off-phone? It wouldn't matter if a few Salvation Army guys give false positives.

Re:Cemeras dont stop crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557869)

These guys were planning to bomb NYC next. So yes the cameras did stop crime. Not the first one, but the followup ones.

If public places are not to be considered private (5, Interesting)

dmomo (256005) | about a year ago | (#43557579)

Then, any cameras being placed should be openly accessible to the public in real time. I won't like the presence of cameras, but at least this is consistent with the sentiment that public places are not to be considered private.

Re:If public places are not to be considered priva (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557969)

Then, any cameras being placed should be openly accessible to the public in real time. I won't like the presence of cameras, but at least this is consistent with the sentiment that public places are not to be considered private.

You know, I'm not sure I agree with that. It might sound nice on first thought, but it's really not. That would just greatly increase the number of people you'd have to worry about abusing the system. It's like saying "that wolf might eat me, but if we introduce another wolf then I don't have to worry anymore". Nope, now you have 2 wolves to worry about.

So much for New York... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557583)

They're spamming TV commercials hither and yon trying to attract startups to New York, but their elected officials are doing their damnedest to make it unattractive as hell to live there. Not that New York needs any help in that department.

I wouldn't like to live in the US now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557585)

Terrorists, disrespect for privacy, corporations ruling the governments...

Google Glass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557629)

Clearly the NYC PD pension account is heavily invested in GOOG.

are more cops better? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43557651)

when i was a kid there were calls for the federal government to fund 50,000 extra cops nationwide to help control crime. people wanted to see cops constantly patrolling their neighborhoods.

what's the difference between that and installing cameras? these days i actually want cops to crack down on dangerous drivers

Re:are more cops better? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43557901)

"when i was a kid there were calls for the federal government to fund 50,000 extra cops nationwide to help control crime. people wanted to see cops constantly patrolling their neighborhoods.

what's the difference between that and installing cameras?"

Cameras are cheaper and don't beat up minorities?

Re:are more cops better? (3, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43558013)

Cameras can be disabled with a $4 tool from a hardware store, or a $0.50 brick.

Living, breathing cops are a bit harder to deal with, and if you do try to deal with them through the use of a $0.50 brick, you're likely to get several $0.30 9mm slugs returned in your direction at great velocities.

Re:are more cops better? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43558029)

when i was a kid there were calls for the federal government to fund 50,000 extra cops nationwide to help control crime. people wanted to see cops constantly patrolling their neighborhoods.

what's the difference between that and installing cameras? these days i actually want cops to crack down on dangerous drivers

Well, if a cop is there and sees something going down, he can stop it*, whereas all camera can do is record the activity.

* Not that he has a legal obligation to do so. [wikipedia.org]

"Kelly Gloats" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557659)

Wow, seems impartial.

Makes Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557663)

Since they (The Fascist Police State wishfulls) didn't respect privacy in the first place it only makes sense that they would use this to take further freedoms away. That is assuming that wasn't by design in the first place.

Slippery Slidin... (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43557679)

When this is the response to what amounts to 2 douche bag gang bangers who barely fit the term "terrorist" by a stretch of the imagination. Besides privacy is not an issue in "public" (it was covered by reams of civil legislation) government surveillance use to be.

Whatever, I don't leave my loft (f u basement dwellers) anyway.

I'm honestly fine with that (1)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43557681)

If you want to install any kind of snooping devices of any sort in my private property, you can go frack yourself. If you want to install any kind of snooping devices in *public* property, though? Why not. It's public property, we already don't have any reason to expect privacy there, so... why *not* install cameras everywhere, as long as they don't get in the way of being able to do things? I'm all for police being able to catch criminals better.

Now, you might argue, yes, but then we wouldn't be able to break laws that we don't agree with, that right now we can break because nobody is watching us. And I would say, the proper course of action then is to try to get those laws eradicated or at least made to be universally ignored. We should be objecting to those laws themselves in such cases, *not* to better ability to enforce them as a byproduct of better ability to enforce other laws that we actually want to be better enforced (murder, rape, theft, etc.)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year ago | (#43557909)

Thought experiment: imagine that you live across the street from a police station, and that you install cameras on your property that watch and record the entrance and garage of that police station. How do you think the police would react to that? How might they react if you published your recordings online, so that anyone could see them?

Whatever the argument is for not having people watching the police applies to not having the police watch me. There are are corrupt cops out there who might use their access to a CCTV network to do harm. Abuses of officers' access to such systems have happened in the past:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-faces-life-guilty-conspiracy-kidnap-illegal-databases-article-1.1286075 [nydailynews.com]

I'm all for police being able to catch criminals better.

We already have an order of magnitude more prisoners than any country on this entire planet. Do you really want to worsen this situation?

the proper course of action then is to try to get those laws eradicated or at least made to be universally ignored

You are contradicting yourself. How can a law be universally ignored if the police are better able to catch criminals? That is the whole point here: we want to ensure that some laws are unenforceable, because those laws are unjust; therefore, we need to ensure that the power of the police to enforce the law is limited. Every time we broaden the power of the police, we broaden the scope of enforceable law.

An all-seeing glass eye? (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#43557739)

That just may soften up Americans to the idea of the all-seeing glass eye.

How can a glass eye (blind by definition) be all-seeing? Don't mix metaphors if you don't know what they mean!

Re:An all-seeing glass eye? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43558083)

Constitution ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557765)

Do I really understand that two brain-dead druggies with a BB gun and some firecracker powder have completely treed the
entire East Coast and caused the repeal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ? Boston certainly used to be
made of sterner stuff!

Now, I see that the Transit Officer who was wounded may have been wounded by "friendly fire" ... sheesh.

Heads should roll, and politicians should be the ones who are treed!

Totally absurd (2, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43557773)

Apart from the fact that it was all on TV, no crime of any real importance has happened. One harmless looking medical doctor in Britain killed fifty times more people without anyone noticing.

Or take this: "A self-styled street preacher who lured three men to their deaths through job adverts on the Craigslist website has been sentenced to death in Ohio." So do we need to crack down on street preachers and Craigslist? Nonsense.

If you compare killings by bombs during marathons, and killings by open-source file system developers, there isn't that much difference. So surely we need to close down open-source file system development as well?

Live webcams on all police officers (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#43557783)

It'd be like watching Cops 24/7 only without commercials.

Wait, Slashdot links to Reason.com now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557817)

Seriously? A link to the uber-Libertarian Reason.com? Aww. I'm so proud. :) They've got good stuff there from time to time.

NYPD: Wall Street = New York City (1)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year ago | (#43557819)

The NYPD doesn't give a DAMN what installing cameras everywhere will do to people's privacy. NYPD has one mission and one mission alone: To protect the capitalist businesses in NYC from attack, most importantly of all Wall Street. You thought you could live in NYC with some anonimity in public places? Well, you simply thought wrong. NYPD will do anything to protect businesses in NYC. But protecting YOUR PRIVACY? That's simply not part of the NYPD's mission. NYPD exists to protect the big capitalist cahunas, and not YOU, the common man. If you live in NYC, expect thousands of new CCTV cameras to be installed in the next 6 - 12 months. And yes, all those cameras will be wired into a central NYPD command post, where realtime face recognition algorithms will allow Bloomberg & Friends to track your whereabouts in NYC 24/7. ---- Sorry to be so negative, but this is what NYPD's mission is - to protect large businesses in NYC from attack. Yes, you will loose your privacy because of this. And NO, nothing you do - protest, write letters, collect signatures, sue the city - will prevent those 2,000 - 5,000 new CCTV cameras from being installed. ----- So this is pretty much it for New York City. As if NYC wasn't a nasty, dirty, crowded, expensive place to live in before, the CCTV will make it EVEN WORSE than before. Good luck to New Yorkers. Once those CCTV cameras are in place, nothing will make the NYC bureaucrats take those cameras down again. ---- On some level it doesn't matter. New York has little to offer over other large cities in the world that are still - for the time being - relatively free.

Re:NYPD: Wall Street = New York City = SUCK PLACE (1)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about a year ago | (#43557955)

Yeah I really didn't need any more reasons not to visit New York or even the City itself. Overpopulation leads to overzealous law enforcement leads to less freedom.

If you really want freedom and privacy, you have to get away from places that house millions of douchebags.

Move to Montana, raise a crop of dental floss, etc.

Pathetic (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557823)

The fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas has killed and injured far more that those in Boston. But, the media pays Texas little mind, compared to their scrutiny and "in depth" coverage of Boston.

No one gives a second thought to Texas or fertilizer plants or any other industrial facility explosion. But 'ooh terrorists. Be afraid. Suspend the Constitution...'

It's really quite pathetic. Even more so that my more reasoned position is outnumbered and shouted down by masses saying things like; 'so, you support the terrorists?', 'are you nuts?', 'you're just being really stupid.'

Re:Pathetic (5, Insightful)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about a year ago | (#43558011)

It's all the media's manipulation of what people pay attention to. If you talk to individuals who can process thoughts within their own mind, it isn't unlikely that they can see the rational reality that the Boston Bombings were really not That Big of a Deal in the grand scope of things. More people are killed and injured on a daily basis just driving or riding in their fabulous automobiles.

Trying to take our freedom! (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43557939)

"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms." - Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Yeah, Mayor. So lets beat them to the punch and take away those freedoms through draconian laws and big brother camera systems before the turrorists can! That'll teach em!

Camera coverage at all hazardous material sites (1)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#43557985)

We need full camera coverage at all hazardous industrial sites. The fertizer plant that blew up in Texas had 270 tons of ammonium nitrate on hand, but were only authorized one ton. They acquired an unauthorized weapon of mass destruction which demolished most of the town. The owners should be punished accordingly.

Hazardous area cameras should be monitored by OSHA, Homeland Security, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, and Underwriters Laboratories. That would keep everyone honest.

Wait a minute.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558009)

The suspects were caught by a store security camera -
what does that have to do with anything? It's basically
the same as an eye witness seeing the same thing.

No amount of cameras would have changed anything if they
didn't have footage of the younger brother placing the backpack.
Many other people in the crowd "looked" guilty, but it was that
footage that sealed their fate and proved the others innocent.

Never let a crisis go to waste (3)

verifine (685231) | about a year ago | (#43558047)

We have to do something. Get people all worked up so they're not thinking clearly, then ram another law in their faces.

Welcome to politics!

BOHICA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558077)

'I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table,'

No, it just means we (the American People) are about to get bent over again.

go to hell (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#43558175)

New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly can go to hell, too.

With one exception (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year ago | (#43558179)

The public video taping police abusing their authority. For that you'll arrest citizens. While a no brainer that we can video tape police in public, it had to go to the Supreme Court yet again to be upheld yet again. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story [chicagotribune.com]
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>