Congress Ixnays FIDNET; Prez Finds Money 66
Signal 11 writes "Congress has shot down the Fidnet project - to read about more details on Fidnet, go the original story about the project. In related news a national jam echelon day is coming up. Unfamiliar with Echelon? It is best to educate oneself. " Well, the sequence of events for FIDNET goes something like this: Clinton proposes computer security group, liberties groups hate it, Congress shoots it down for funding, Clinton attachs it to another bill. So, we won and lost - for more details, check out our recent YRO Story.
"Jam Echelon Day" (Score:1)
ps. Wackenhut Inslaw covert assassination COINTELPRO.
MIRROR OF JAM ECHELON (Score:1)
Re:"Jam Echelon Day" (Score:1)
Re: def of democracy - WRONG! (Score:1)
> for wise brains etc. Elections are such a
> bullshit now.
Reminds me of a passage in the Stephen Bury (aka Neal Stephenson) book, _Interface_:
I liked it so much I marked up my book so I could find it again. :)
Nobody (well, at least the majority of voters) seems to care about ideas and ideals anymore. They don't look at what a candidate actually *did* previously in his political career, they just react to how he presents himself on TV. When is the last time you actually heard a candidate have a real discussion about the workings of the government, issues, and how things should change? Instead of presenting their views, they hit the hot buttons of taxes, abortion, and anything with the key word 'children', without really saying a word.
Geez, what a rant...
Anyways, as far as Echelon goes, the idea scares me (the invasion of privacy almost as much as the thought that any government agency can actually coordinate something so far-reaching without screwing it up). However, as has been said elsewhere in this article, the chances of them keeping track of even a small percentage of the 'net, given it's size, is pretty slim without the active participation of a large majority of the Internet's infrastructure. The truly evil thing is that it is even being attempted.
Admittedly, unless you encrypt your mail and such, "privacy" on the Internet is just a gentleman's agreement, considering the nature of a network. The real issue is that it's a symptom of the larger problem of a seeming decline in common decency in general, not just on the Internet. Perhapse it's just a perceived decline, but to me, the oil that keeps our social machine going is losing it's viscosity. :)
(Score: 0.5, Mostly Offtopic)
_National_ Jam Echelon day? (Score:3)
As a start, you can prepare yourself by extracting the naughty comment found in the (source of) the National Jam Echelon Day page, and on the day itself, put it up in your webpages, attach a conveniently small subset of it to your signature and anything else you can think of (have your browser/squid report itself as something naughty, and every HTTP request may be tagged). Anything you can think of.
Let's hope I won't forget that day myself. I'm notorious in forgetting long-term stuff
- da Lawn
Re:"Jam Echelon Day" (Score:2)
That's what I get by paying taxes in the good ol USA. I seem to be supporting a bully that wants to tell others how to trade, spy on others, not communicate in confidence, etc...
Re:"View Source" is your friend (nt) (Score:2)
I bet a little script to insert random dictionary words and sentences between them would produce something that would be more difficult to screen.
Re:I am probably going out on a limb here... (Score:1)
Overestimating the threat means that people who find it hard work to catch real crooks will be attracted to getting paid for catching minor-league crackers. We should not give in to this distraction, nor should we let law-enforcement people engage in sandbagging by this means. If we let this happen, it means considerably less freedom for everyone, in addition to being a waste of resources. On top of which, there are real world criminals who will go unpunished just because the cops are trying out their new computer toys.
There is real crime that happens on the Web. If you ask ransom for not bringing down an e-commerce site, you are just as bad as a thug who asks for protection money from a night club. Just think in terms of what a reasonable real-world cop would bother to go after and you will see that a) real crime in cyperspace is less frequent than the scare stories say, and b) law enforcement people who find elaborate real-world frauds tedious to prosecute are equally deterred by the complexities of computer crime. However, giving in to the current wish list of intrusive and largely useless measures is not the answer.
Re:... (Score:1)
I hope that someday the current police surveillance culture will seem just as intolerable as slavery seems to use.
Re:... (Score:1)
Enemy of my Enemy... (Score:2)
Re:privacy (Score:1)
--
... (Score:1)
Anyway, what happened to the concept of democracy in this country? Isn't it supposed to be congress that approves budgets and bills? While I have some issues with the system in general, all my textbooks say this is the way it's "supposed" to work.
Have we given the executive branch too much power? Maybe somebody with a background in political sci can give me some more details? I've only taken 1 class on it. :)
--
Re:... (Score:1)
Indeed. It's alittle too early in the morning too - I'm sick, so I got up early and perchance happened to see my story on the main page, so I thought I'd muster something together. Unfortunately it didn't come out the way I wanted. Well, atleast I got first post and didn't get eternal damnation for it...
My question really is - how come our president is allowed to keep reintroducing the same legislation over and over again? It's a waste of legislator time, it's obviously unpopular, and it just seems to me like clinton's little pet project. Politicians shouldn't have "pet projects" - they ought to find out what's most needed by the country, and dedicate the maximum amount of time to solving that problem.
--
Re:Actually.. (Score:1)
Yeah...I know. but at 7:00am when you're sick, have strep, and your code hasn't compiled cleanly in days.. I think I can get away with alittle inaccuracy.
Note to self: bubble-sorting is slow on large arrays.. and what's worse.. it's *REALLY* slow. Must.. find.. better.. way...
--
Re:jam echelon day (Score:1)
--
Re: def of democracy - WRONG! (Score:1)
Democracy, n: Election of the corrupt few by the ignorant many.
--
Re:jam echelon day (Score:2)
--
Re:Hosted by wiretapped.net (Score:1)
Nothing I could do about it...
Dogcow
Re:... (Score:1)
Re:... (Score:1)
Re:Clinton's just the front man (Score:1)
Try I've seen some evidence [aci.net] for yon president having a cocain addiction. Not really looked upon with much love in the current eyes of society.
Jeff
Re:[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day) (Score:1)
"Obviously, being picked up both other major information dissemination channels will increase the effectiveness."
s/both/by/
"What preview button?" ;-)
Re:jam echelon day (Score:1)
"Anyway, I think most of my non-geek acquaintances would find it rather strange with all those spooky words at the end of every mail. :-)"
Exactly! That gives you the opportunity to educate them on the issues. That is the whole point [slashdot.org] after all, is it not?
Re:M-x spook, anyone? (Score:1)
"I'm suprised that no one has mentioned M-x spook in Emacs yet."
Actually, "someone" did. Here [slashdot.org]Re:_National_ Jam Echelon day? (Score:1)
"Since project Echelon rises above the USA's (official) territory (by definition), why not make it a World Jam Echelon Day?"
If you follow the link given, you will see that it is called "Jam Echelon Day" there, with no "National" limitation. It was only the link on /. that added the "national" part for some reason. (C'mon Hemos,. don't be US-centric.)
Re:"Jam Echelon Day" (Score:1)
"red-blooded patriotic American"
You mean like those people in the 1770s that took out their guns and shot at the representatives of the government that was in power at that time, because they didn't like what that government was doing? That kind of patriotic?
PS: cheek, tongue
Re:Hosted by wiretapped.net (Score:1)
"The site must be down already. There is no other information than this."
I too saw that (and thought to use \ (SOURCE) in lynx before the comments posted here about that) but it appears the site has changed drastically since earlier. You may want to revisit the site (and force a reload, if cached) Ms. Anonymous Coward. There is content now and abundant links.
[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day) (Score:2)
These days, any form of activism involves events intended to disseminate your message to as broad a base of listeners as is possible. Whether we like it or not, this generally includes specifically-crafted "media events" targetted toward being picked up by mass-market information disseminators, such as the news media.
Like it or not, at this point in time, the general populus still is either unaware or unconcerned about the steady erosions of their online (and offline) privacies and the increasing trend of Orwellian monitoring of even the most simple interchanges by Three Letter Agencies and others.
A one-day action certainly isn't going to overwhelm the NSA's filesystems, and I am certain no one actually believes that it would. But it does have merit nonetheless. In a sense, it enables "the little guy" to feel a sense of empowerment by making an (admittedly token) gesture, somewhat akin to making obscene gestures at surreptitious surveillance cameras. Obviously this doesn't directly change the underlying problem, except in the small measure that the individual is that much more likely to take a slightly larger "rebellious" action the next time. Don't forget that so-called resistive actions are frequently the precursors to more active (and effective) attempts to effect change of the undesirable situation. (Think, "baby steps.")
More importantly, these events bring the subject to the forefront of conversation. How many water cooler conversations might happen in offices thoughout the land, somewhat like this, the day after a similar event gets national coverage on the ubiquitous evening news?
This also provides the opportunity to educate those with recently-awakened awareness of the issues to the importance of routine use of strong cryptography, since it is one of the most effective means of ensuring privacy against such Orwellian systems. Providing a link to GNU Privacy Guard [gnupg.org] (or even its less-free predecessor [pgpi.org] you mentioned) as well as an offer of assistance in setting it up, or acting as a mentor, will go a long way toward acheiving the goal of widespread use of cryptography being the norm, rather than the exception.
Oddly enough, your post here on Slashdot is indication that the "Jam Echelon Day" event succeeded, at least from my perspective. The story is covered here, and will generate discussion, hence awareness of the underlying issues is being increased, with opportunity for followup discussion. Obviously, being picked up both other major information dissemination channels will increase the effectiveness.
Emacsen's Mx-spook and its ilk may not directly affect the NSA, but indirect effects via increased public awareness are likely. An idealist would say that Echelon can be ended through the process of representative government. A realist may doubt that, and feel Echelon can be ended only by making it no longer cost-effective, due to the routine use of strong cryptography. Either way, the first step is to bring the issue to the eyes of the populus, as often as possible.
Re:[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day) (Score:2)
"the two approches aren't mutually exclusive"
Agreed. When I first followed the link in question, it was rather content-free, with the majority of the content being in the HTML comment. Now however, I revisited the site and find a good deal of (IMO) inaccurate information, which I find disconcerting.
"the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work."
Again, agreed. Without the research of others, most educators in any field would have no material to teach their students. You obviously had greater exposure to this particular group than I however, since I was unaware of the (IMO) inaccuracies in their presentation.
"The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down."
But here I am torn.
This is certainly true in a topic where awareness is already at least marginally present in the majority of affected people. I feel that is, sadly, not the case here yet. What is worse, many otherwise-intelligent people dismiss the topic as "another of those computer techie things" and similar. Until we reach the point where the majority care about the issue, I believe there is a need to "hook" them, with discussion that won't be dismissed as "too technical" (or "irrelevant" by those not willing to admit they find it "too technical." I suspect many of the cries of "More Consipracy Theorists Again" come from people who find the material too intimidating for serious examination.)
Until the majority have learned to care, I think there is a valid place for both tactics.
In my years of activism, I have learned to speak in sound bites when interviewed at rallies and similar. John Q. Sixpack will not listen once bored, and needs to become invested in the subject matter in the first few seconds or can be considered "lost."
At the same time, I have learned that informative and credible content is important when talking with U.S. Senators on live television, since John Q. Cocktail (?) recognizes accurate and articulate presentation, and recognizes the subsequent backpedalling on the part of an otherwise-articulate politician. (BTW, the latter was quite enjoyable from my perspective, indeed! ;-))
One could even say my last two paragraphs are something akin to my saying "See, I know what I'm talking about, believe me." And I suppose, in a sense, that would be accurate. :-) But the intent is to provide illustrations of the two principles each having their place in an overall campaign of public education, i.e., "consciousness raising."
(Broadcast) conversation with Senators draws a more intellectual audience and warrants a more intellectual coverage of the subject matter. Speaking to a news camera for the evening news warrants a more simplistic vocalization of the issues, since the target audience is comprised of a less-intellectual ilk, for the most part.
Each situation is intended to publicize the subject matter, but each has a different method, since each has a different intended target, with different characteristics. At present, with regard to the issue of government surveillance, I feel the overall American public to be on the level of John Q. Sixpack rather than John Q. Cocktail (in the examples above.) (Other countries will differ of course.) The one-day event strikes me as being on the order of a rally, a media-crafted event, intended for coverage on the evening news (even though the web site regrettably claims it is to actually overwhelm the Echelon project, which I feel is a ludicrous expectation.) As such, I feel a certain degree of "dumbing down" is warranted.
Had the intent of the event been to trigger discussion here on Slashdot, less dumbing down would certainly have been in order, and significantly greater accuracy would be imperative. (I happen to believe accuracy to be needed at any level, even when looking for the brief news clip, but that's me. heh)
While I am also guilty of dumbing down my usual discourse here on Slashdot, it is certainly a more intelligent forum than many which John Q. Sixpack would frequent. (I am trying to walk a tightrope between honesty and sounding elitist here.) Intellectual capacity here is greater than in front of most televisions, especially if the subject matter is technical. The simplistic comments necessary to "hook" John Q. Sixpack are likely to be flamed here, quite frankly. (Hence my view that this forum require a bit of dumbing down to reach, at least on non-technical matters.) I suspect there is a spectrum of appropriate content levels needed in covering this subject, since there are so many different venues the discussion should reach, if we are to saturate the apporpriate information channels.
After all, there are so many people affected. :-)
Once more people have learned to care about the issue, and have bothered to absorb the basic concepts, much of the dumbing down will no longer be necessary. It is sad that we are not there yet.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I hope I managed to convey both sides of an issue upon which I am genuinely torn. (Normally, I am opposed to the "dumbing down" I see in mass media.) In the process, I realize I gave "them" the ability to say "Yep, rallies, senators, he's the same guy we thought he was!" heheheh
Re: Athens (Score:1)
The big problem is campaign finance reform, but underlying that is a much more complicated quetion of how people get their information about candidates and use it to make their choices about who to vote for.
M-x spook, anyone? (Score:1)
It makes for entertaining reading sometimes when you're very bored
Re:... (Score:1)
Close but no cigar
A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.-- Thomas Jefferson
--
Re:... (Score:1)
Well yes, but as one of the foremost political theorists of his day he was hugely responsible for Constitution ver 1.0, which has served us pretty well (albeit with a few bugs) for over 200 years. Besides IIRC he freed his slaves when he died...
--
Re:... (Score:2)
The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson
--
Re: Definition of democracy (Score:1)
Re: def of democracy - WRONG! (Score:1)
Elections probably worked in acient Athens where people knew each others and hence the men they vote for. Things like this.
How can it work now?
People are voting for handsome faces more than for wise brains etc. Elections are such a bullshit now.
Why is once not enough? (Score:2)
If I were paying tax money to the American government, I would be rather upset about the whole doubling of efforts here. I mean: On the one hand they have echelon, which they deny is going on, but which all know beyond reasonable doubt is there, and is monitoring our communications networks (private and state) already.
But, just to so they can keep denying Echelon, they have to invest another 39 million in a monitoring network they admit exists. I bet that money is actually going for corruption, while FIDnet will just be a public front for the already in place Echelon.
Anyways, as far as I am concerned they can go ahead and monitor all they want. The Internet is a public network, sending packets over it IS like sending postcards. However, I do want to it to be a fair playing field. That is:
Yes, mr Sam, you may go ahead and evesdrop on me as much as you want, but don't think for a fucking second that you can try to keep me from using language you can't understand when I don't want you to know what I'm saying.
Crypto IS a human right.
-
Re:... (Score:1)
IIRC, this is part of Jefferson's comments concerning the Whiskey Rebellion (which also included the comment "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.")
/.
I am probably going out on a limb here... (Score:2)
Okay. I understand, and believe in, the concept of a "right to privacy", and agree that the government has more important things to worry about than monitoring everyone's communications in the hopes of thwarting some terrorist attack or stopping drug deals or whatever. However... I believe that there ARE legitimate reasons for someone to be "policing the 'net" so to speak. And although I'm sure that there are some people or groups who are doing some amount of behind-the-scenes work in this regard, I don't think it's having much effect. I hear some of you saying "what the heck is this guy talking about?" Okay, some examples are probably in order. People who spend time cracking web sites & servers, and subsequently posting graffiti, just to prove it can be done. Sites that illegally host commercial software, or registration codes or cracks. "Script kiddies" who spend their time trying to crash IRC servers, flood ISP's, or do other stupid and offensive things. All of the other forms of what I would call "cyberterrorism", which in a nutshell is any activity that makes me wary of my time online.
I'm glad that some folks are at least taking the time to help educate people who are considering DSL or cable modems, to explain why it's a good idea to set up a firewall to protect themselves from the nosey and/or dangerous folks out there, but I think it's kind of sad that when confronted with a "crime is on the rise" scenario, most people think in terms of a bigger/better deadbolt & security system, rather than attempting a neighborhood watch or working with law enforcement authorities to put the crooks behind bars. There's probably a place for both types of crime prevention, but I'm getting off topic here.
The point I was trying to make is, almost all of the preceding messages I've seen on this thread are "government intrusion is bad, stop it stop it stop it stop it", but no one seems to want to consider that perhaps some policing of the 'net could reduce the amount of annoying activity out there which we all seem to accept as part of the price we pay for a 'free network'.
Okay, my rant is over now. We'll see if it gets moderated down to 'flame bait', but I hope not, I have faith that there are at least a few Slashdot readers out there who feel the same as I do about "network freedom".
Thanks,
Veracity of Keyword Sources? (Score:2)
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Re:... (Score:1)
As far as I understand, the government is supposed to represent the people, not control them. The US has been moving more and more towards a police state with the advent of Internet censoring, and noone is saying anything loud enough to be heard.
Was it Abaham Lincoln or a contemporary of his who stated that the US must have a civil war in every generation to keep the country a true democracy.
I'm glad I'm out of the US.
Re:... (Score:2)
Re:The liberal agenda (Score:1)
Re:... (Score:2)
A Prez, however, a) probably is asked by Congress to submit a proposed budget covering its own executive offices, and b) can "introduce" any legislation it wants if it can find a single friendly sponsor in each house. b) is almost always possible; short of, say, requesting authority to personally interview (alone) and choose all Congressional secretaries, I doubt there's much that Bill can't find at least one guy to support.
There's also absolutely no restriction that states a bill has to be coherent, AFAIK, so the funding for FIDNET could be attached to a subsidy for studying the mating habits of tortoises, or whatever. The original bill sponsors also don't get any "extra" say, hence such things like riders onto popular bills and "poison-pill" amendments. And so forth.
{shrug}
Re:jam echelon day (Score:1)
Anyway, I think most of my non-geek acquaintances would find it rather strange with all those spooky words at the end of every mail.
-
Actually.. (Score:1)
That sort of depends on where you live. AFAIC, you've got the third article of the day.. Well, second or third depending on whether or not you consider day to be as in "I see sunlight" or "hey, look, it's past midnight".. Then again, since the story before it was posted in the same hour, yours would still be the second story of the day. ;)
I will note, however, that it is interesting indeed to see a post marked as #1 that is actually intelligent commentary rather than "AW YEA 1ST POST I ROOLZ UZ BITCHEZ, DOODZ!!" =P
Re:jam echelon day (Score:1)
Re:[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day) (Score:1)
Re:[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day) (Score:2)
As for your argument that this discussion proves that their methods are successful, one could just as easily - and more correctly, imo - argue that "hacktivism" is a vindication of the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work. It's a chicken-and-egg question. But the main point is that effective opposition to Echelon hasn't come from bouncing half-baked emails around - it's coming from the diligent work of people like Nicky Hager [google.com], whose research has brought about intense opposition to Echelon from, for example, the EU and Duncan Campbell's report [apc.org]. These results have played a big part in European liberalizations of (or active governmental support for) crypto. Now that there's much more accurate info about how these systems work available, promoting misunderstandings of these systems is just perverse.
The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down. If these "hacktivists" would smart it up, I'd support their efforts wholeheartedly, but that's not what they're doing.
jam echelon day (Score:4)
Re:I am probably going out on a limb here... (Score:1)