http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html
This is the biggest fcking invasion of privacy since the Patriot Act. The internet is fine like it is. We don't need the goddamn government stepping in to impose rules and monitoring our activity 24/7. Please, please... I hope this never gets off the ground.
Quote:
STANFORD, Calif. - President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.
It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.
That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.
The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.
The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)
"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."
The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.
Details about the "trusted identity" project are unusually scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.
Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.
Inter-agency rivalries to claim authority over cybersecurity have exited ever since many responsibilities were centralized in the Department of Homeland Security as part of its creation nine years ago. Three years ago, proposals were were circulating in Washington to transfer authority to the secretive NSA, which is part of the U.S. Defense Department.
In March 2009, Rod Beckstrom, director of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Center, resigned through a letter that gave a rare public glimpse into the competition for budgetary dollars and cybersecurity authority. Beckstrom said at the time that the NSA "effectively controls DHS cyber efforts through detailees, technology insertions," and has proposed moving some functions to the agency's Fort Meade, Md., headquarters.
Other than this loudly ringing your paranoia bells, can you state your more specific objections?
First, why does the government care if it's citizens need to memorize a bunch of passwords online? And why do we need to spend more money that we dont have in order to resolve this problem? Here ya go US government: mother fcking FIREFOX!
This new measure is just another step in tackling the one last place we don't have control over: The internet. And it's being passed under the false pretense of security. Sound familiar? it's only going to get worse with the increased implementation of IPV6.
ThatGuy85 wrote:First, why does the government care if it's citizens need to memorize a bunch of passwords online?
With all due respect, that's not an objection, per se. It is a rationalization masquerading as a murky accusation of veiled motives on the apparent part of "your enemy, the Government."
ThatGuy85 wrote:And why do we need to spend more money that we dont have in order to resolve this problem? Here ya go US government: mother fcking FIREFOX!
This new measure is just another step in tackling the one last place we don't have control over: The internet. And it's being passed under the false pretense of security. Sound familiar? it's only going to get worse with the increased implementation of IPV6.
Well, you seem to have some preconceived notions that anything which might occur in this arena is instantly a loss of freedom and privacy. I am sure the same disgruntlement followed any other similar occurrence, such as the assignment of SS numbers decades ago. But you seem unable to state your objection in anything other than general and preferential terms. That's fine, as you are certainly welcome to your preferences, but be advised, it rather dilutes the punch of any debate you may have about this subject. You need to cite specifics to engage in anything other than an ideological pissing match over this.
I don't see anything wrong with the proposed plan, personally. The current Internet way of dealing with this is a hinky patchwork quilt of compromises, and it's also easily compromised. It's completely natural for something so rapidly all-encompassing as E-commerce and recordkeeping to attract more attention and subsequently, more organization. Currently, it's really just a couple steps removed from anarchy.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote: Currently, it's really just a couple steps removed from anarchy.
And that's the way it should stay.
They're having problems with Julian Assange and Brad Manning. They're having trouble tracking down all of the information they leaked, and from where they leaked it.
This is a step towards being able to monitor the flow and control of all information on the web. Sorry. Not going to happen. Period. I think I also heard there was a proposal for an internet blacklist to control our internet sites like China. Although, I'm not sure if it ever got anywhere.
Although all the details of the proposed plan are sketchy at best, hence why I can't cite any specific concerns with their plans. However the general feeling around the entire tech community is one of fear.
They SAY that we won't have to get an ID card if we don't want one... How long will that last? What information is going to be linked to this account, and why does the government need to control it? However, one particular statement you made irritates me:
Quote:
The current Internet way of dealing with this is a hinky patchwork quilt of compromises, and it's also easily compromised.
The hell it is. You've watched one too many movies where the geek in his parents basement hacks into the pentagon's top secret files. The sites that matter, such as paypal, ebay, and other high-profile ecommerce sites are damn near bullet-proof to hack attempts. Nearly all instances of people's accounts getting stolen is through social engineering. Introducing a new accounting system will do nothing but complicate the matter for end-users and expose new threats to identity theft while the system gets ironed out over the course of a few years.
ThatGuy85 wrote: This is a step towards being able to monitor the flow and control of all information on the web. Sorry. Not going to happen. Period. I think I also heard there was a proposal for an internet blacklist to control our internet sites like China. Although, I'm not sure if it ever got anywhere.
Such is your opinion. It woudl appear that you've nothing but other opinions to reinforce it...no actual facts.
ThatGuy85 wrote:Although all the details of the proposed plan are sketchy at best, hence why I can't cite any specific concerns with their plans. However the general feeling around the entire tech community is one of fear.
They SAY that we won't have to get an ID card if we don't want one... How long will that last? What information is going to be linked to this account, and why does the government need to control it? However, one particular statement you made irritates me:
Quote:
The current Internet way of dealing with this is a hinky patchwork quilt of compromises, and it's also easily compromised.
The hell it is. You've watched one too many movies where the geek in his parents basement hacks into the pentagon's top secret files. The sites that matter, such as paypal, ebay, and other high-profile ecommerce sites are damn near bullet-proof to hack attempts. Nearly all instances of people's accounts getting stolen is through social engineering. Introducing a new accounting system will do nothing but complicate the matter for end-users and expose new threats to identity theft while the system gets ironed out over the course of a few years.
Your attempt to reduce my perceptions to "movie scripts" is weak. I well realize that security is decent at this stage...after all, it's the private sector whose resources are at stake, and they're pretty good at protecting themselves. Nonetheless, if your contention is that there is no need for improvement, I disagree.
You've now as much as admitted that you and your cohorts have whipped each other into a collective frenzy over this. I think you need to stop, breathe, and quit sipping the powdered drink mix about it...you seem more driven by passion than actual fact at this point. Consider letting the additional details emerge first.
The government makes everything better. If they made cigarrettes, they'd have vitamin C in 'em.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Kevin Trudeau meant to have wrote:The government makes everything worse.
There. Fixed to show your real thoughts. Of course, if
your team was the government this time around, you'd be deflecting flak for them as you lick their shiny boots.
Don't try to disguise your real motives...we are not as stupid as you'd like to think.
You took it upon yourself to debunk my blatantly obvious sarcasm? Congratulations sonny, you've won a prize!
Hell, I didn't even take a side here on THIS issue, merely that government involvement usually does not promote efficiency. What we really need though, is another government agency, with department heads, salaries, health benefits, hundreds of empoloyees, etc. It would, after all, create some new jobs!
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:LOL debating that government will be removing our privacy.
New-flash: government has been monitoring ever since the Cold War started. From your cell phones, through credit cards, through your banks, to where you travel, to what you say on the internet, to the people you know (at least back in the days).
so they know i live a boring life. oh well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:LOL debating that government will be removing our privacy.
New-flash: government has been monitoring ever since the Cold War started. From your cell phones, through credit cards, through your banks, to where you travel, to what you say on the internet, to the people you know (at least back in the days).
Yet people still think they live in a free country .
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved Acts 16:31
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
" Mark Twain "
John H wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:LOL debating that government will be removing our privacy.
New-flash: government has been monitoring ever since the Cold War started. From your cell phones, through credit cards, through your banks, to where you travel, to what you say on the internet, to the people you know (at least back in the days).
Yet people still think they live in a free country .
the general public puts out so much information itself that most high school kids can dig up the same type of information against someone. doesnt mean we dont live in a free country.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
You are certainly
free to name a country that is more free. Why, with your encyclopedic knowledge of world affairs, societies, and political systems, this should be an easy task.
I dont see why the govt needs to get in on internet security. If youre too stupid to protect yourself. Sorry. But thats just me.
i suppose the purest form of freedom is anarchy. But even then, a ruling class will still assert themselves eventually. Its in our nature to try to control those who cannot resist.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
if you think the government controlling this is a good idea you have never dealt in government information. it is not the role of the government to regulate an open air forum such as the internet. Big scale the government being in control of all of this information is an intrusion of privacy, if not an attack of freedom of speech (and by extension of assembly) Small scale it is the government in your life one more way. It is as legal as someone reading your mail.
For the pot stirrers here, this whole your party our party nonsense does not apply. Principles if they are real principles are not held based on political party but in the individual themselves.
I love topics like this... I just never read anything in here anymore.
1.Just because we are the most of something doesn't mean we are. Yes we are the least oppressed country in the world giving us the appearance of being free, but we are not. Just ask your "social security" number about that one.
2. The internet is not 1 entity, its a large network of privately owned computers all over the world. If people didnt want to follow the rules they could just bypass them since the government can never truly have control over it. Thats why they want to do this ID crap, because the internet scares them. They are not doing it for your security, they are doing it because they want to control what you can do.
3. The government is not there to help you, you are just a number to them that they take money from. Do you realize that the average person doesnt see ONE benifate from the federal government other then the fact the military keeps people from invading us? Yet most of your taxes go to the federal governent. The local police, fire department, road maintenance and everything that actually effects your life are either governed and paid for by your city or state. There are a few federal government programs that help people out there that 90% of us will never use, and those who do are ridiculed. The gevernment is concerned about its own power and only thinks of you as a paycheck and something to control and keep occupied.
4. The "you wont think that when someone breaks into your house and you need to police to help you" argument. Again... thats paid by the city but I have an answer for that. Im armed to the teeth at home, I have several ways to take care of that problem myself. If I could make a deal with the police where they wouldnt help me, but at the same time they would give me the freedome to handle any issues like that myself without persecution I would jump on it.
5. no one will probably bother with this other then people that like to give me crap and this is most likely a pointless post.
i will step in weeble on point number 3 that the average person doesn't see one benefit.
how about social security? anyone over the age of 65 is receiving that. how about medicaid? road maintenance is not strictly paid for by the cities. a good majority of it is goverment funded goverment gives the cities money for roads. schools. goverment doles out money to the states and such for school. those four things cover just abou every person in the country.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
I have a real hard time counting social security because of how much of a joke it has become. I have a hard time thinking of it as anything other then a you where born tax. Yes some people at present day are benefiting from it to a point but by the time we are old enough it will most likely be gone. You would be better off to invest all that money yourself then to put in into social security for the government to mess with. A plan where the government gave significant incentives for planing for retirement or just a plan where the government could not use or touch the money in social security would work much better. It does have its benifates, but now adays its not enough to live on alone and is basicaly just another tax masked in good will.
Medicaid, while flawed does help a fair amount of people, as does wick I suppose.
As for governent funding to states, counties, and cities, Im kept out of the loop on that, but when it boils down to it the locals have to make it happen. As for schools, dont get me started LOL.
Yes there are a few government programs out there that help to a point but they are all improperly funded and running out of money and we are already starting to see the collapse.
Points 3 -5 where mainly typed as a preventative measure for the points a lot of people try to bring up, and when I said the "average person" I know I wasnt including everyone and was mainly reffering to those that would read this.
But as a whole... the government is in the business of taking our money for their own agendas while giving way less back then they take in small amounts to give the appearance of usefulness.
Wich was basically the argument I was trying to make as for why anything they would try to do to the internet would not be for our benifate in any way.
allof of it is just mindset. how do you protect kids on the internet. 1 person wants to sit there with there kid 24/7 and see every bit of info there kid sees, another person wants to cut the internet connection so there kid never is at rick, another person wants to educate there kid on what to do and what not to do another person. well you get the picture, everyone is trying to do the same thing they just have complelty diffrent ideas of how to do it. the problem with goverment and people in general is everyone assumes there way is the best way and everyone elses idea is wrong and stupid.
i agree higly with you on the social security. repulicans were pushing for that big time, i'd love to be able to take a percentage of my s.s. and invest it and take the risk of making way more money then they offer. but when its brough up the opposition goes after the older generation and gets them to believe they are going to take there s.s. away.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
The biggest problem I have with all of this is freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
Its up to us to decide whats best for us and our children. Its also the parents sole responsibility to parent there kid.
The government should have no say whatsoever. And when you create something like this your are punishing the people that dont care what the hell comes across there computer screen. There is no one fix for all, and there never will be. Thats the problem with this country, we pass an ass load of laws trying to make things equal and all it does is screw everyone over. Freedom isnt all fuzzy and safe. Ill take a risk as long as I have my f-ing freedom, wich we dont anymore.
If little betty some how comes accross some X-rated porn on the internet, thats the parents responsibility to fix or prevent. There is net nanny software out there, and if you raise a kid properly its not that big of a deal to begin with. WTF are little kids doing on the internet with full access in the first place? The internet wasnt even known of until I was in high school and I dont have kids so its probably an issue I cant relate too, but people need to be responsible for themselves. All the government ever does is ruin things. Look what they did to the free market. Free was right in the damn name, then they screwed with that part and it collapsed.
The government DOES NOT know what it is doing.
