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!

Former CIA Head Calls for Limiting Access to the Internet

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the feeling-safer-already dept.

The Internet 935

GMill writes "Former CIA head George Tenet has called for limiting access to the internet to only those who take security seriously and that the industry should 'lead the way' in restricting access. Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?"

cancel ×


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

It obviously means (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10987971)

An end to anonymity, and that is something I fully support! No one on the internet should be anonymous! It's just wrong.

Re:It obviously means (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988007)

It should be a way to require a certificate of identity. I can agree to that.
But to end all anonoymity? No way!
Do you yell out your name while walking down the street?

Re:It obviously means (5, Funny)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988009)

Hey Taco... any chance you'd be so kind as to tell us the IP of the above AC poster?

Re:It obviously means (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988121)

yeah, I think it's

Re:It obviously means (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988204)

Hey! that is my IP address you bstard!!

Re:It obviously means (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988235)

You've been 0wn3d

Let's see what we can find. Pr0n, pr0n, pr0n, illegal mp3's, pr0n, pr0n, and ... hey, you sick bastard, what's this - MS Office? Disgusting!

Re:It obviously means (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988122)

Yeah, like Taco reads this site anymore.

Re:It obviously means (4, Funny)

Class Act Dynamo (802223) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988151)

I heartily disagree with you. I think that the internet should be absolutely anonymous. I, Ted Phillips, believe that no one should EVER be identified on the internet.

Sounds good to me. (5, Funny)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10987972)

I know I'll probably be in the minority here, but I say: That God. For too long the internet has been a haven for bad people engaging in bad behavior.

Finally, we can get rid of all those terrorists, child porn mongers, spammers, communists, hate groups, spyware writers, homosexuals, political dissentors, darwinists, gamblers, sex-ed supporters, atheists, blue-staters, teenagers, abortionists, people who confuse decent Americans by engaging in satire and especially those people who question electronic voting. Finally we'll fix the internet and make it safe for all the little children and honest hard-working Americans out there. Heck, we've already got an FCC all set up, we can just put Michael Powell in charge.

Thank God we live in an age where we can finally bring about the society we as Americans so richly deserve.

Re:Sounds good to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988026)

Think you meant to say, "Thank God," but really saying "That God" is funny in a freudian way to. I'm sure that High Priest Bush II will appreciate your support.

Re:Sounds good to me. (1)

fractilian (704807) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988064)

People will find other ways. File shareers did it ... something tells me someone who is willing to kill themself for their cause will have no problem with an "illegal internet".

The easy way to do it (3, Funny)

lilmouse (310335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988070)

Just unplug your cable/phone cord, and you've got everything you want!


Re:Sounds good to me. (2, Insightful)

Wingit (98136) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988087)

Oh, and don't forget those that mention God, free speech or civil rights. Ban them all. MUAHAhahahaha.

Re:Sounds good to me. (2, Funny)

MynockGuano (164259) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988103)

I can't tell whether or not this is sarcastic. Either way, it's impressive. >8)

Re:Sounds good to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988193)

You can't tell that this was sarcastic?!?

Anyone who actually believed that would be far to stupid to turn on a computer, let alone post it ;)

Re:Sounds good to me. (1)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988110)

It has already begun! The first line of defense against the foreigners has been erected!

Bush website adopts isolationist stance []

Your indecent use of the swear words ... (4, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988124)

"homos-xuals","d-rwinists", "s-x-ed", "ab-rtionists" and "h-ck" has designated you as someone incapable of providing the wholesome interface that the NewInternet(tm) needs. Step away from the computer and wait for the relocation experts from Guantanamo to arrive.

Have a nice day!

Re:Sounds good to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988159)

People like you give americans a bad name. Doesn't bother me, I'm not one of you. But just take a few seconds to wonder why most of the world sees americans as closed minded, bigoted, dim-witted nationalist idiots.

Good. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10987976)

Create a licensing system for computer users. If you can't pass, you can't get on the internet. Period. That should bring up the intelligence level of the place a bit. And pretty much put AOL out of business.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

drakaan (688386) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988155)

Yeah, because licensing worked wonders for keeping bad drivers off the highways...oh, wait...

Re:Good. (1)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988158)

And pretty much put AOL out of business.

Yes because the decisions will be made by tech savvy politicians who can not be bought. They will graciously accept the Linux lobbyists offer of "going dutch" for happy meals and discussing the open source security model over the offers of fat campaign coiffers etc...

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988162)

"Create a licensing system for computer users. If you can't pass, you can't get on the internet."

Unfortunately, licensing operators of motor vehicles has kept very few morons off the highways -- what makes you think that requiring a license to operate a keyboard and mouse is going to work any better? Unless, of course, we require a breathalyzer test for log-ons...

Well, (0, Redundant)

Sevn (12012) | more than 9 years ago | (#10987980)

I don't know if that's what he wants, but that's what he'll get.

Re:Well, (3, Funny)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988116)

He's not gonna get it, thank goodness. I mean ...

Tenet's statements advocate a

( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to security. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from crackers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in protocols
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(?) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down! [Erm ... what's that knocking on my door?]

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10987981)

First Post bitches!!!!!

In Soviet Russia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10987986)

In Soviet Russia limit ACCESSES YOU!!!

What? (5, Insightful)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10987988)

Maybe that sort of bone-headed comment is why he's the "former" CIA head.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988145)

> Maybe that sort of bone-headed comment is why he's the "former" CIA head.

Or, maybe why he was CIA head to begin with?

Re:What? (1)

Spellbinder (615834) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988211)

maybe with another president
but with bush he should be vice president.. following your logic
but he made a too good scapegoat

Man... (5, Funny)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10987991)

It's going to suck not having any Internet access at the CIA...

The first step in limiting the Internet (4, Interesting)

intnsred (199771) | more than 9 years ago | (#10987992)

Obviously, the power of free speech on the Internet is something for gov'ts to fear. This has been predicted by many.

This is just the first step in limiting people's free speech rights on the 'net and turning it into a bland, corporate organ, similar to today's TV.

Bye Bye MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10987996)


"what exactly does he want?" (1)

konichiwa (216809) | more than 9 years ago | (#10987998)

Publicity in lieu of his job...

It's obvious what he wants.. (3, Insightful)

jenkin sear (28765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988001)

What does he really want?

Umm... free PR from the easily excitable? He's a washed up political hack who needs some press so he can either run for office or get a few more lucrative speaking engagements.

Re:It's obvious what he wants.. (3, Insightful)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988221)

Is he selling a book?

Save us, government! (0)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988004)

Great, more beaurocrats thinking that they can solve the (non-)problems of the world. The State sinks its teeth in a little bit deeper, then a little bit deeper, .... it never ends.

Government official mentality... (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988005)

"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."

So the Internet can be full of organized corruption? Pay offs, rules only followed by those that don't have enough money and power?

If there is data accessible via the Internet that "terrorists" could use to "attack" us then that data needs to be moved off of the Internet. The general public should be allowed to travel around without restrictions or control.

Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."

What exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that an open consortium should sit down and discuss how we should build a more secure network that is still able to communicate like the old one? Or does he mean that we should all be locked down with hardware and software tied with "trusted computing" which will lead to further domination by a small group of companies?

Personally, I believe that the United States needs to understand that they aren't the only entity in the world and that they cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about "terrorism". What would have happened if the Internet was this popular during McCarthyism? Would we have had to make sure we were all secure because of the over-inflated threat that the Soviet Scare created?

Terrorism is another scare tactic phase in our history where money is diverted to pay for unnecessary applications (both military and civilian) to protect us against a threat that we have no way to stay ahead of. No matter what we do they will always find a way to circumvent our methods (ie scanning for bombs on planes when instead they used the plane as the bomb itself or checking for the outlines of guns and knives when they used a boxcutter).

Somehow I don't think that this is a call to ban Microsoft products from the internet. What exactly does he want?

He wants government control where government control is unnecessary. What they need is to stay out of the lives of the public and keep up with the protection of the entities that they already have control over. Sorry but Big Brother doesn't do anything but piss people off. I highly doubt that the "threat" is going to attack us through private channels over asymmetric broadband connections and dialup modems.

I realize it is difficult for someone living their life in a position of authority in the high ranks of a government funded organization to understand what the people want but that's exactly why his comments need to be fought tooth and nail.

I'll end my rant with: Keep your fucking own data safe from the "threat" without infringing on the freedoms created without government control.

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988010)

ISPs should take a more aggressive stance to monitering and cutting off customers sending out spam/DoS etc.

Great... (1)

gargonia (798684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988011)

... just what we need: further regulation of something that has no need to be regulated in the first place. I wonder if we'll be allowed to leave our homes without a permit once they get done "protecting" us from everything they can think of.

What...?? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988014)

I thought that US is a free nation, where all sorts of freedeoms flourish. Thsese include freedeoms at all extremes, including the fredom to associate or otherwise. What is this man spitting?

Re:What...?? (1)

saintp (595331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988107)

What is this man spitting?

I think you meant to say "smoking." What is this man smoking? And that's a rather stupid question; it's clearly crack.

Re:What...?? (3, Funny)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988184)

I thought that US is a free nation, where all sorts of freedeoms flourish.

Adorable. Absoultely adorable. That is just about the sweetest thing I've heard since my daughter read me her christmas wish list to Santa.

It means (3, Interesting)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988025)

That he thinks that all actions should be logged and easily traced back to whoever committed said action.
It also means that they want some better backdoors built into existing encryption products, but the CIA is having a hard time getting them into the open source ones.

I wonder if the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc has people who help program OSS so that they can incorporate little hooks into things?

Re:It means (1)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988095)

That he thinks that all actions should be logged and easily traced back to whoever committed said action.

I'm sure the political dissenters in places like China who use the Internet to communicate with each other and the outside world will greatly appreciate their anonymity being taken away like this. Well, at least their governments will appreciate it.

FCC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988027)

...yeah, a copy of bish went to Michael Powell over at your friendly FCC. Super. i'm all for security and whatnot, but hey, by plugging in that modem/ethernet/fiber/etc, you took on a responsibility and a liability. Being on the net will never be completely safe.

I don't think... (1)

spidergoat2 (715962) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988029)

...that the 6 users out there that take security seriously will justify the cost of the internet.

Patriot Act v2.0 (3, Insightful)

fat-latvian (670482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988032)

Time to start spinning the idea of regulating the internet and invading even more of our privacy in preparation for the latest and greatest version of the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure it's up for renewal soon.

Right end, wrong means (2, Insightful)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988034)

I understand what he's saying and he has a point about it being a weakness. But we need to take care of it in different ways by applying the security measures a corporate network would apply to themselves to the internet. Things such as detection and filtering of DoS's, exploits, etc, but with a waiver for those who agree to protect themselves. That way Aunt and Uncle Cletis aren't participating in a DoS, but I don't have my pen testing filtered by someone upstream.

In Korea... (-1)

Ming_Mecca (816256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988035)

...Serious Security Is Only For Old People.

Of course it makes sense... (2, Interesting)

CodeWanker (534624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988038)

Since those Islamic terrorists crashed browsers into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and they sent envelopes full of computer viruses to the Senate and the American Media building in Florida. Oh, wait...

It's because those Islamic Terrorists learned how to fly jet airliners on-line! Yeah! Oh... Um...

Because the idea is easily enforceable and people outside the United States will have no choice but comply! No? Crap...

While this sounds good, it probably won't be. (1)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988043)

Ahh, this would be nice, but the problem is that most likely the standards set for what is secure and what is not will be annoying to those of us in a forum like this.

Freedom (1)

jproffer (766368) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988044)

Eventually, your freedom to visit the toilet must give way to "governance and control".

Key word "former" (5, Interesting)

mrn121 (673604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988045)

Before you go freaking out with you tinfoil hats, read that article's title again. He is the FORMER director of the CIA, which means that now he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us (only with probably fewer computers/components sitting around unused in his house/parents' basement). He has no real authority over anything right now, he just has more of a voice because of his previous job as head of the CIA.

Global world, not national (2, Insightful)

ets960 (759094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988047)

The internet is global, not just national. Sure, limit the internet to Americans, but you can't limit it to the rest of the world.

correction (2, Funny)

supernova87a (532540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988049)

George W. Bush: I think you meant "internets"!

Americans Against Freedom (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988051)

This is a prime example of Americans against freedom. Why do you Americans stand for this blatant abuse of your independence and right to be free?

Re:Americans Against Freedom (1)

Darth23 (720385) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988164)

Becuase we were attacked by a bunch of foreigners from pro-US authoritarian regimes who our flight schools trained.

So now we have to give up all freedoms so that the governent will protect us. Even though we know that they can't and they've said as much.

Plus, certain parties have been trying to figure out how to eliminate Freedom in the US for a long time now, so there's no since it letting all that work go to waste.

Once the put the chips in out heads (1)

Darth23 (720385) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988052)

They'll know what we're doing all the time anyway.


Sadly the kind of stuff comig out of my former and current governmental officals sounds a lot like policies from China or the USSR or some other totalitarian/authortarian state.

Apparently we have to destroy Freedom in order to save it.

All of the worm writers .. (1)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988055)

All of the worm writers, spyware developers, etc take security seriously. I mean, how else would they be able to exploit their targets?

The internet, to me, seems to be mimicing real life. For instance, they're probably waiting for a "Digital 9/11" to lockdown and regulate internet usage. As as people follow blindly, they'll probably get their way.

Uh-oh (1)

Bobby Infinity (640466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988057)

Internet papers please...

More legislation, more rules (2, Funny)

RM6f9 (825298) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988066)

Puh-leeze! Pretty please, big brother, regulate my life so I can feel all comfy-cozy and enjoy my ultimately illusory security from the predators who also know more than I do about everything? Big brother, please protect me and keep me safe from the ones you call bad, those who aren't mostly good, defined as blindly following rules?

Wild West? (2, Interesting)

geminiDelta (836235) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988069)

His most interesting comment was "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control" ... A layman's analogy that doesn't really apply, and he never tells us what 'governance and control' means, although we can all take some pretty good guesses...

Vital industries... (3, Insightful)

No. 24601 (657888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988077)

should not be using Internet infrastructure in their core network. Unfortunately, the Internet provides the most cost-effective solution to global networking (no quality of service guarantee until we hit IPv6). I think network engineers have a responsibility to society to ensure that the networks they design can withstand both natural disasters and deliberate attacks by both script kiddies and criminal masterminds like Bin Laden.

My idea.... (2, Insightful)

cr0y (670718) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988079)

My idea for a while has been to require everyone who wants on the net to have a license, You need a license to drive on a highway, why not the information super highway? I think people should need to read some simple internet etiquette and then take a simple test making sure they know what they are in for, and to make sure that they will help contribute, instead of burden the internet.

Hooray! (2, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988080)

My regime would also support that. Internet licenses yadda yadda. Also impaling and stuff. One of these days I should write in my journal all the things my regime would be for...

I'm sure this guy is just attempting to curry favor in order to get into my inner sanctum when the Revolution comes. George, I get your message loud and clear and I assure you that The Party will have a special place for you! Call me and we'll do lunch!

What all other 9/11 talking heads want (4, Insightful)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988081)

What exactly does he want?

The same thing everyone of the experts who felt disparaged by the 9/11/ commission want. To prove they are indeed experts and that because of 9/11 they are smarter than everyone else and should be taken (read that paid) seriously for their trivial understanding of the problem.
If our weakness is that we are to dependant on the internet, fix that fact first. Most govt agencies have no plan for if the internet was seriously down. So, they have put all their eggs in a basket that they don't control. The solution could be one of two things A) control the basket...can't work. B) Learn what systems need to be redundant without the internet and how to accomplish it. Difficult but more plausible.

Non-state Actors (1)

shadowmatter (734276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988086)

From TFA:

He said known adversaries, including "intelligence services, military organizations and non-state actors," are researching information attacks against the United States.

So anyone who isn't Alec Baldwin?

- sm

What exactly does he want? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988088)

What he wants is a method of keeping America Safe from internet attacks with out having an good understanding about the technology and the scale of the internet.
What law enforcement and lawyers get loophole in the system where the government can disconnect a person's or company's right to use the internet. So if they want someone off the internet they need to prove that they are not secure thus not taking internet security seriously. Which is a lot easier then proving that they are providing wrong doing?

No Wonder 9/11 Happened on this guy's watch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988090)

But he is still smarter than our commander 'n thief...

The Golden Age of the Internet (2, Insightful)

SlashdotMirrorer (669639) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988092)

I think that this could bring about a new golden age of the internet, for the people who really believe in it, and the security of it. Certainly if we were to block access to it from those who are not secure, there would be a new and revived interest in becoming secure and knowledgable about security. Back in the late 80s when the Internet started, people like Sir Tim Berners Lee and Bruce Perens and other pioneers were instrumental in crusading against the sort of exploits we see today. This search for knowledge rather than money is what really got the internet started by the bearded terminal hackers of yore.

I fully support this.

Re:The Golden Age of the Internet (2, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988192)

I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but the Internet has definitely been circling the drain since corporations and the general public got involved with it. I've been around the Internet for a long time -- since the early 90s in fact -- and am thus quite aware of the ruinous activities it has been subjected to by the typical user since then. You know, things like people popping into a random USENET group and treating it like a tech support line, or in the larger picture basically assuming the entire network is there to serve as some form of entertainment.

When I started, the USENET application would inform me that my message would be spread across tens of thousands of computers at immeasurable cost as a subtle hint to keep things interesting, and Internet Chat required some basic knowledge of Makefiles and attention to documentation before you could run a client. Frankly, things became unmanageable at the point the Internet was made accessible to anybody with a web browser; anybody who's been around this long knows what I'm talking about.

It's a short hop to realizing that the problems we're experiencing with virii and worms are the same problem. Intimate knowledge of x86 assembly used to be a requirement -- along with a malcontent-type disposition -- in order to wreak the sort of havoc that today requires fifteen minutes and an Effective VBScript In Fifteen Minutes manual. Every document is now a program, and e-mail doubles as FTP.

Many experts believe we should raise the barrier of entry by requiring programmers to undergo education, certification, and maybe even an oath to do no harm as part of the certification process if going into a security field. It used to take years to do what kids today can do in months; additionally, a would-be programmer who spends a few months picking up Visual Basic or whatever has hardly learned the fundamentals of programming any more than someone who reads a manual about his DVD player has become a laser engineer. I suggest that the field and the general user experience would be greatly enhanced by limiting access to compilers/assemblers (by means of pricing and with the cooperation of the open source community) and by separating macros or other executable content from documents.

It makes more sense than trying to go out and educate every user. Think about it; in what other field do we "educate" "users"? We don't try to educate people with electrical outlets and let any curious individual perform as a licensed electrician. We don't "educate" passengers and let anyone who cares be a bus driver give it a try. Why are things always so difficult when it comes to computers?

Re:The Golden Age of the Internet (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988201)

"those who are not secure"

You do understand that the determination of who is, and is not, "Secure" will be made according to political criteria, don't you?

"Secure" will come to mean nothing more than "not threatening to the ruling party."

Accurate reporting? (1)

gmajor (514414) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988099)

The national media, including United Press International, were excluded from the event at Tenet's request

So UPI/Washington Times didn't actually hear the speech, did they? They only got the quotes from secondhand sources which may or may not have had a bias against Tenet. The other quotes from the story imply that Tenet was more concerned about making the net more secure rather than preventing access.

Limiting net access still makes for an interesting discussion.

An organization with no constitutional authority.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988101)

...feels it has to right to rule over a global network that isn't even Americas. I'm not surprised. When you steal authority domestically, it isn't much of a stretch to expand that delusion to the rest of the world.

Eh (1)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988106)

The microsoft OS is just as secure as any other, it's just the people who use it are by and large retards. When is the last time there was a virus released that could penetrate a fully patched OS where the user wasn't using IE or Outlook?

Damn this guy is scary. (1)

Dana P'Simer (530866) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988114)

What's next, shut down access to book 'cause people might read controvesial ideas? Start reading the mail so that we can make sure no one is talking about ideas we don't like? Jam all radio transmissions to make sure no one is communicating anything we don't agree with?

Ben Franklin (3, Interesting)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988115)

"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

Hmmm.... (1)

clawDATA (758072) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988130)

Doesn't sound very Gnu/Linuxy.

Enough is enough. (1)

Quebec (35169) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988136)

I'm tired of old farts saying the OSS and/or the net is evil and dangerous.

For the RIAA, CIA, MS, SCO and all I got a message for you: You're old farts and your mindsets are out.

When they are not truly scared about something they can't understand they are FUDding for the survival of some old useless scheme in which they have personal interest in.

Let's see the Internet route around this (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988141)

Anyone who didn't see this coming after 11/3 (that's 3 Nov for your EUians) was deluded. Here comes the Big Hammer(tm). Let's see the Internet "route around" this one.


I Quoted b4, I'll Quoteth again (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988144)

Knowledge in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to productive power is already, and will continue to be, a major-perhaps the major-stake in the worldwide competition for power. It is conceivable that the nation-states will one day fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory, and afterwards for control over access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor.

Jean-François Lyotard

Stupid Idea (1)

trilks (794531) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988150)

That's such a stupid idea, Tenet is an idiot.


You listen to "formers"?? LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988161)

There is a reason this guy is a "Former" head of something.

He can mouth off, and I can mouth off. And we both have precisely the same authority: Zero.

Mod me down, but cut the guy some slack (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988163)

What Tenet says does have some truth to it - he is right that the Internet does have some problems. Banks have gotten hacked before. Infrastructure is exposed, and governments need to safeguard themselves and their data. While these are not very insightful comments, they are not really off.

All that said, his quip about limiting access to the World Wide Web pretty much demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the Internet works. It is also possible that the comment was taken somewhat out of context. While it is unfortunate that all of these policy makers have such poor understanding of technology and how it works, that isn't going to change in the near future.

I'm not trying to say that I like Tenet or everything that he does and stands for (like Carnivore), its just that a small technically illiterate quip (possibly taken out of context) does not necessarily deserve the barrage that will eventually be on this thread.

What the !@#$! (0, Troll)

wbdune (754995) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988165)

What a retarded comment!

What does he (they) want? (1)

koan (80826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988170)

To censor and control the last bastion of free speech.
Since the only news show worth watching any more is The Daily Show it's obvious we can't rely on the news media any longer.

Illogical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10988173)

Those who take security seriously are the least affected by viruses, trojans, worms and the like. And we are the least likely to be duped by phishers and scammers. Where is the problem?

There is a sucker born every minute, and two to take 'em. Frankly I like the fact that the targets of attacks/scams are easy targets and from my point of view, easy to spot and/or safeguard against. If we were to remove the easy targets then more attacks/scams would become highly sophisticated and stealthier.

Using the internet should be licensed... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988175)

...just like driving a car. Of course licensed drivers that suck (speeders, tail gaters, drunks) are on the road today too, so... that won't work now will it? Oh well, back to my Doom III game. ;P

Power (1)

flibuste (523578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988187)

I, for once, welcome our new Secure Internet Overlord. Because, even in Soviet Russia...

Ah..hum..well..Never mind..

This guy is just an insensitive clod who lost his job. I don't care.

Do I pre-qualify? (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988188)

After all, I use a Mac.

That said, rather than only allowing use of the internet to those who 'take security seriously', how about mandating software to be basically secure?

Whose fault is it that a XP machine is 0wzeD within 2 minutes of being connected to the net? Should someone be required to know the ins and outs of Windows exploits in order to use Windows, or should Windows come secure by default?

Most people aren't going to learn, until you force them to. They might miss Will and Grace. All George (you pick) wants is a list of troublemakers - the ones with smarts are the ones you need to look out for. Thankfully, I won't be on the list.

Already been done (1)

saintp (595331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988189)

Isn't there some [] other [] country [] that sharply regulates Internet access?

Stupid. (1)

BigZaphod (12942) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988191)

The Internet was designed the way it was to survive a nuclear attack--but apparently it can't possibly survive those evil terrorists without lots of governance. Boy, the terrorists sure must have some sweet weapons!

Licensing! (1)

bplipschitz (265300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988194)

That's right--make everyone take a license test before they can get on the Internet! Just like Ham Radio!

The Novice license will allow gopher access only to, and you can use the 'ping' command with restrictions.

The General License will allow text-based email, sftp, ntpdate and limited usenet access [again, text based].

The Extra License will allow www access [text based], unlimited usenet newsgroup access, ssh and limited streaming audio.

Only the Governmental Microsoft Expert License will allow GUI's, full use of IE and streaming anything you damned well please. Oh, and if you are a GMEL licensee, you *must* run IIS on all your machines, and they all must be directly connected to the Internet.


Total Wrong Approach (1)

Evil W1zard (832703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988197)

The statements made here by Tenet are just plain dumb. For one we can no longer control the Internet as it is a global entity and the idea of limiting access to only security minded organizations/individuals cuts out probably 80 percent of Internet users. A better approach would simply be to enforce policies at the US level for baseline security for organizations and work internationally in creating a more worldy solution similar to this so at least corporations/organizations will face possible penalties for not participating in good security practices. For the individual home network security then the solution is going to need to be a much greater govt/corporate/open source community working relationship that helps get the person at home not only the education that computers need to be secured, but also the tools (either free or close to it) to easily bring their systems/networks to an appropriate security level. Making statements like this to the press just spins people up and doesn't really address a more realistic solution to the overall problem.

What's He Want? (1)

tom's a-cold (253195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988208)

He wants there to be a license to publish. Back in the days when communication involved dead trees, the King of England licensed every printing press. That's why freedom of the press was so important in the US constitution. Now Tenet wants the same royal license for the Internet.

These people don't want anything to exist that they can't control. Further evidence that, as I've said all along, terrorism isn't the main threat to them, it's the possibility that we might find out what they're up to and get organized to change things.

somehow (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988213)

... I can't see Al Qaeda being all that into internet attacks. I somehow can't concieve of a headscarf-wearing Mujahedeen screaming "Allah akbar!" from behind a terminal in a Pakistani internet cafe. More to the point, I doubt they see themselves this way either.

Sure, they are out to damage the United States economically, bin Laden has said that's his ultimate goal, and the internet is a good way to do this. But al Qaeda and its ilk are into doing it in a way that involves dead Americans and suicide bombers. The means of attack is every bit as important to these guys as the ends. That being said, the internet is probably an increasingly important tool for organizing more conventional attacks.

Tinfoil hat time (1)

ctid (449118) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988216)

Mr. Tenet called for industry to lead the way by "establishing and enforcing" security standards. Products need to be delivered to government and private-sector customers "with a new level of security and risk management already built in."

I usually laugh when people see the hand of Microsoft in threat to liberty, but this does sound like something they would say.

This Nugget of wisdom from..... (3, Interesting)

big-giant-head (148077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988218)

Mr "Slam Dunk WMD Iraq" Tennet. Please Both the R's and D's think this Guy is a loser. He's just trying to stir up something so he'll be invited on with Bill O'Rielly and get some free phone sex............

Just another fossil from the fifties (1)

scenestar (828656) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988219)

His species will die out soon, just give him his little soapbox to scream his ideas from, soon hell be dead n we can all happily contnue to surf, blog and download porn

Inferior & Vulnerable tools is the weakness. (4, Insightful)

digital photo (635872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10988231)

That's like saying roads cause accidents and chemical spills because they are there. That is utter nonesense and complete BS.

The internet is the road. And the accidents people are having include: adware/malware, virii, worms, and hacked systems. The internet isn't the cause of this, it is the road upon which this happens.

It happens because companies built crappy operating systems that focuses more on bells and whistles than solid and secure software engineering.

It happens because companies create crappy virulent programs that infects peoples' computers, making them even less secure(ie, adware/malware).

This is NOT the fault of the internet, but rather the fault of the people who continue to create weak tools for people to use on the internet.

Another problem takes the form of weak habits of the average user out there. The concept of security is so absent as to be unknown. Almost every person I used to talk to about security always said the same thing: "Why would anyone break into my computer? There's nothing important on it!" Thankfully, today, most of the people I talk to who have ANY contact with tech are more prone to ask me "Can you give me any tips on how to make my computer safer?".

If the end user doesn't take steps to ensure that their own computers are safe when the people who sold them the computers don't, then they are just sitting ducks on the internet. Their computers end up contributing to the problem.

The internet doesn't need to be restricted. From what most security reports say, only one thing needs to be restricted or re-engineered: Microsoft's Windows operating system(all versions) and the applications that they create(IE, MS OFFICE, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc.)

If MS can become secured, then a significant chunk of the security issues on the net will go away.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?