Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws 479
A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
P2P and freedom of speech in one blow, what could be better?
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Interesting)
They'll just instruct the ISPs to comply (meaning block any undecryptable traffic) or face mean men with guns.
Would that get us closer to Civil War? You bet.
Would that actually get us to Civil War? No, not as long as myspace, google, and facebook still work.
Port 443 would be blocked for all except online banks and those who comply with the government in other ways (think lots of logs and/or live monitoring of post-ssl traffic).
Any ISP personnel facing potential felony charges will think first of their families (as they should) and comply, at the expense of Joe Hacker.
So, who originally wrote it ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who wrote it ? In which administration ? Curious minds want to know.
It was obvious to me in 2001 that this had been previously prepared, and it astounded me that anyone would fall for this BS.
Unfortunately, history indicates they would probably do it again.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would this be enough to make us move? (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".
Is this any different? Are there any of us for whom this really *is* the straw that breaks the camel's back?
I just got back from Austria, and I've got to say, it's pretty fsck'ing nice over there.
My internet's down Hoss (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of places out in the country that does well with little internet. Only major cities that depend on external systems and greedy business people will be impacted.
Paranoid Linux is your friend (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's what you could do:
1. Set the fecal chloroform counts for the reservoir monitoring systems at max. SCADA + Internet connection + SBO = Good Times.
2. Set every traffic light to green in all directions (or cycle the lights quickly enough to cause massive accidents)
3. Disrupt the trunking radio system (used by first responders). It's simple to make one, and only obscurity keeps bad guys from making an undetectable jammer. Worse, P25 (new US government mandate) requires Internet connectivity.
4. Overload a few older transformers like in Vancouver two weeks ago.
So what you've got now is the water supply shut off by the sensors, and traffic is so backed up with crashes that the engineers can't get to the site to reset the system. That gives you 2-3 days until people start dying off. Even if you get it fixed in a day, people will fucking panic like Home Depot shoppers in a flyover state.
The police, paramedics, fire, buses, etc can't co-ordinate anything since their radios aren't working.
Then the backup power goes out.
Good times.
Infowars Reported (Score:1, Interesting)
Alex Jones has reported on this as well. As we all know, 9/11 was a "turn" for the worse in society. Another fake, "global" war to get the yuppies to submit to power, government lies, and propaganda. 9/11 was a false flag event, the same as the Gulf of Tonkin, which is now declassified, and has come out that Israel actually attacked the carrier.
What you will see, I would imagine is a false flag event, pulled off by those who are capable, and well paid, bring down the root servers. This has been demonstrated in the past, and is VERY possible, especially considering the recent DNS flaws that have spewed out in the media. They will come out, and say "Oh, we need Internet 2", and it will be totally censored. No porn. No free speech. And if you talk about a candidate, other than the 2 government run parties that are exactly the same, then you get unplugged. If you log on, without your DNA being uploaded, then they swat team you, and kill your family.
The way that criminal governments work, is problem, reaction, solution. They create a problem, judge the reaction, then pose as the saviors. Usually, they come up with a solution that will piss off a lot of people, and they do it to diminish freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion... the list goes on, and on. One day, just one day, you will be sitting there, wondering where all of your freedom went, while you are a slave on a global corporate plantation.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753 [infowars.com]
Endgame:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261 [google.com]
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time.
The fact that people generally tolerate things is at least an indication that a call to revolution is not going to succeed.
I know people who have lived under martial law and genuine oppression. I laugh at Americans who seem to actually believe there is a spirit sufficient to outright spark a revolution.
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:3, Interesting)
> What could possibly count as a cyber 9/11?
You aren't nearly paranoid enough. Those of us who have thought the unthinkable can see dozens of really nasty possibilities. I'm more amazed that we haven't had a major attack yet. Seems that some parts of the government is actually functioning since we haven't been attacked physically or over the net since 9/11. Sad that the only parts that are still working are the parts nobody can talk about.
Remember that 9/11 wasn't about killing people, athough that was certainly a goal. The point of terrorism is to terrify civilian populations with the goal of effecting the policy decisions of the government, or to so disrupt a civilization that it can't continue. 9/11 came a lot closer than a lot of people want to admit to achieving that second goal. The world economy tettered on the brink of a total collapse for several weeks. Only a massive tax cut sufficed to jump start the economy, something that can't be repeated all that many times without itself causing serious problems to economic stability.
So, given the goals of terrorists, what sort of things could they do that would have similar disruptive effects to taking out the most prime block of real estate in the world? What could qualify as a 'cyber 9/11?'
Number one on my list would be to go for the ultimate prize. Destroy the entire Internet economy. Not wanting to dwell on specifics for obvious reasons, but how hard would it be to destroy public confidence in ecommerce? Think dark thoughts along those lines and you will get scared pretty goddamn fast. Microsoft's chronic insecuity could very well end up destroying our very Civilization.
Or leverage an Internet attack into a wholesale attack on the banking system. Steal enough credit cards and launch a massive fraud attack right at the peak of Xmas shopping. Does Mastercard & Visa cease operation for a few weeks (and tank themselves and most retailers) or allow the fraud and hope to pick up the pieces without going broke?
Remember the goal is fear, panic and chaos. Dead people are just one way to create fear, not even the best one since (as they discovered) killing Americans has a nasty tendency to piss us off and cause us to break things.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
> Either every single Supreme Court justice since ever is illiterate
> or they're all evil.
No, four could read "Congress shall make no law..." and understood that McCain Fiengold was clearly infringing. And five managed to parse "shall not be infringed." and rule the DC gun ban out of bounds.
> They just realize the reality of the situation, which is that the
> Bill of Rights is simply wrong in that respect and you need to ignore
> it and get onto more pressing matters.
And now it is clear, we won't be agreeing on much because you serve the forces of darkness. You can't just "ignore" the Bill of Rights and remain a nation of laws. What you pine for is a dictator who will make all of your decisions for you.
And we have the answer to how so many educated Supremes can fail to read the Constituition and not get the right answer. They understand perfectly, but being Socialists they simply don't give a damn what it says.
Note that it IS perfectly acceptable to disagree with the 2nd Amendment, private possession of arms, etc. and still be an American. But you can only do so by first proposing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the Founding Fathers were very wise men, but they were not God Kings handing down the law on graven tablets, thus they realized that their laws might need to be adjusted for differing times, and the procedure for Amendments. Done that way it doesn't turn us into a nation of men instead of laws.
Of course you will repeal the 2nd Amendment only after I have fought you to my last breath and last dollar.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you're one of those Fox News wingnuts who just hates the idea of a black man being president,
Would those be the same wingnuts that wanted Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell to run?
Do you actually think things can get worse? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Iraq war is the best possible scenario for religious fundamentalists. The have pictures of dead Muslims to pass around, an excellent environment for cultivating new psychopaths, and a good place to train them. The orphaned children alone represent tens of thousands of new possible recruits.
You're spouting the same nonsense that kept us in the Vietnam War, only this time we're actually going to lose some valuable resources if we are forced to leave Iraq. But don't worry your pretty little head. We have four permanent military installations that we will only abandon after our currency finally crashes from our national deficit and staggering military spending. The democracy we're pretending to support in Iraq is just like the one we helped the British with in Iran back in the 50s. And we all know how well that turned out.
As soon as the $300 checks sent out to the Sunni mercenaries who have switched tactics for the moment cease to arrive, the "pre-surge" violence levels will return overnight. To quote one Shia resident, the terrorists have become the police, but for how long? Peace in Iraq is extraordinarily expensive, and soon we won't be able to afford it.
Some folks can't learn lessons from history. I just hope the rest of the western world learns that destroying Arab secular nationalism always leads to the formation of religious fundamentalist groups. The PLO became Hamas, Lebanese turned to Hezbollah, the Afghanis turned to the Taleban, and the Iraqis have turned to al Qaeda. They don't just roll over and die, and in fact Hezbollah are the first military organization to have defeated the Israelis in a ground assault. If they had any comparable equipment, you'd see a different attitude towards Lebanon, just as the nuclear armed North Koreans got diplomacy instead of bayonets. It has made it clear to the rest of the world that we will leave you alone if you have a nuclear arsenal.
If you think that the arabs are to blame for the conditions that allow terrorism to become acceptable to their culture, your history books must be pretty thin and biased.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems to be overly-cynical. People aren't bad at adopting new things, they just need a motivator:
Wow, the things Microsoft have taught me. Thanks Bill! Anyway, getting back to the point, the biggest risk to an improved network, is that legislation may be created to stop it being used. Most people are willing to bend the law a little, but not break it.
Incidentally, who was the bloke speaking after Lessig? He had some very good points about how the Internet on mobiles isn't taking off because of the huge fees carriers are demanding, and the assumption by venture capitalists that the Internet 'just works' by itself. Very insightful comments from him.
Re:Obama (Score:2, Interesting)
I made nothing binding upon you, I explicitly pointed out that if you thought Marbury v. Madison was SCOTUS overstepping it's authority: "I suggest you file a suit to challenge it or petition congress to rectify the situation."
I'm glad to hear you've done exactly that. I hope your petition is given fair and just consideration.
(Oh, I am very much disappointed in some of SCOTUS's rulings, but I do think they should be authorized to make them. It is that which is the difference between between us.)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Read about the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
Most people just want to be able to get on with their lives. It is only in extreme conditions, where that is not possible (i.e. people are hungry), that the conditions for revolution exists.
Revolution represents the failure of a system.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Your implication that Obama is ignorant of constitutional law is without merit.
The merit is based on there being no constitutional authority yet he's pushing for a national health care system. Some may argue, as you do, the interstate commerce clause may give the authority to the federal government. What those people don't say is that the constitution puts a limit on the power of government, it enumerates what powers the government has, and bars it from doing anything else. One it does not give the power for is national health care. The 10th Amendment specifically states that what powers are not granted are reserved for the states and individuals. If the federal government wants that power it also says how it can gain that power, by amending the Constitution. Unfortunately while amendments were originally used to guaranty right, the First 10 Amendments being the Bill of Rights, now they are used to expand the power of government.
As for Gonzales v. Raich (or whatever it's called this week) I was frankly hoping the controlled substances act would be overturned, but I think the decision, legally, was the correct one.
Originally it was Raich v. Ashcroft [findlaw.com], Ashcroft being the Attorney General then. The vote itself was a 6 to 3 vote, the descending justices were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor [wikipedia.org], William Rehnquist and [wikipedia.org]Clarence Thomas [wikipedia.org], O-Conner and Rehnquist being nominated by Reagan and Thomas was nominated by Bush Sr. The descending opinions weren't very flattering of the majority decision.
>Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
My bad statement, I realized that after posting. I should of used better wording, such as saying I thought that because I thought calling being disagreed with idiots was being idiot itself.
I don't think the income tax system is good and personally would prefer the fairtax system
I heard a number of "fair tax" systems, but I don't consider a tax on people's income to be fair at all. People shouldn't be made to pay tax on what they earn. The closest I come to agreeing with national taxes is on fuel, to pay for highways only, and a sales tax on nonessential items. However if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution there wouldn't need to be a sales tax.
but if you think it isn't constitutional, then yes, to me that's the thinking of an idiot. There's very clear rulings on this.
So O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas are idiots?
Falcon
Bob Barr in presidential debates (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen him on some of the Sunday morning news shows...and I gotta say, I am quite impressed with him now....I wish to hell he could get included on the 3 'presidential debates'....he can speak quite well, and I'd love to see him actually throw answers out there in the middle of the main parties candidates who love to say nothing so far.
I doubt Barr, or any other presidential candidate, will be invited to participate in many debates McCain and Obama have. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party [reliableanswers.com] were both arrested for trying to enter a debate in 2004. Yet not many people know that because the mass media didn't do their job and let people know.
I think Barr would actually make a good showing, and possibly even force the other two candidates to take some positions, or look like idiots afraid to answer a question...
That's why third party candidates aren't invited. But if the mass media did it's job, of informing people, more people would demand they be allowed to debate.
Falcon
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, it seems logical to me that the best candidate would always be the one closest to science and scientists, an actual scientist would be perfect. Pity there's not much of them... I think it was probably one of worst things of the last 50 years Al Gore lost the election against GWB. I think we're (that's right, we) gonna pay that for a long time.
One last thing, I find somewhat disturbing the fact that a country so powerful that it can change and influence things everywhere in the globe and yet no one but it's citizens can influence it... Not that I'm offering a solution, nor am I saying it is an easy one... But it sure is something someone will have to work out...
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
The problem is intellectuals (defined as "people who think they can do better", or, only partly joking people who think "if everybody did what I say there would be world peace"). We both know slashdot is rife with them.
They have the big problem that Joe Schmoe cares for exactly what you'd think he cares for : his ability to drive his/her car as far as he wants. Food, luxurious food, a big house, toys, children ... and that's it. (Or as Barack O states they care for "guns and religion", which is not true, they care for getting their ass comfortable, guns and religion simply help too much to give up)
So a democracy will always be in favor of increased private spending, and increased energy usage, which today means "more co2 release". Which is the very antithesis of most "progressive" (socialist/communist) policies. Let's not forget that it's "progressives" (albeit not American ones, though it did include many European ones) that engineered the USSR famines, and for example China's one child policy is also of progressive making (the Nazi's, also socialists, had similar measures).
This is NOT to say that they're nazi or communist, but it is beyond obvious when listening to Barack O. or Al Gore that what they really want to do is massive, involuntary social re-engineering (whether it's energy usage, "tolerance" as defined by giving money to the day's "popular victims", or "genetic purity" (which was big in socialist circles between 1920 and, well 1960-70, google for "eugenics movement"), they want to re-engineer the whole of society to fit their image of an ideal society). These people are also responsible for the current Iranian government AND for the ascent of power of people like Saddam Hussein (and they were in favor of them on many occasions, why ? Because of their political leanings. Those little details of genocides like the halabja campaign of Iraq, or the recently "impossible to locate anywhere" marsh arabs of Iran, are but pesky problems that can be ignored for the "greater purpose")
The problem is beyond obvious : they expect economical sacrifices of Joe Schmoe, which they will never get from him/her voluntary.
So without violence, the ultimate, massively irrefutable argument, their policies won't be implemented. However they are intellectuals : in an open fight ... they lose (and lose big, as cannot be illustrated more thoroughly by the events in Iran in 1972. First progressives overthrew the government. Next the government started executing gays. Something must have gone wrong. It's easy to find out what exactly went wrong : the terrorism of khomeini).
It should be obvious to even the 5 year old daughter of Obama that the energy reductions necessary to reduce carbon output will NEVER be implemented voluntary. The other idea of the green movement, "limiting population", you can guess how much enthousiasm people will have for that one. Some of the greens, by the way, are discussing genocide in order to implement this, though fortunately it's the lunatic fringe for the moment.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
But the solutions of the socialists (and the greens these days) are utter disasters for the common man.
Reducing co2 output is painful. VERY painful. It will never really happen in a democracy. And before you state that Europe proves otherwise, I'd like you to check 2 little details : ... or not ? (the commission is the lawgiving instrument of the EU, not the parliament, as you might think. Again, google this) ...
-> who has the power in the EU ? Does the composition of that body make the EU democratic
-> exactly how many coal fired power plants are being constructed in the EU ? Zero right ? Oh wait
Re:Just wait ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just like they could let big business have exceptions or poke through with VPNs
Sure they could.
many companies in China have a vpn to the outside world and so are not affected by the firewall but individuals don't get the same thing.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Interesting)
So the Docklands bomb in Feb 1996 wasn't targeted at commerce?
That's why there's a 'ring of steel' around the City of London - not because of the Islamic threat, but because 12 years ago the IRA set off half a ton of fertiliser, killing two newsagents and putting the wind up the bankers along the way.
And the 7/7 bombings had no 'higher aims' - they were murder, pure and simple.
I don't see the evolution of terror attacks in the way that you do - the targets are always targets of opportunity, and the skill levels of the individual terrorists determine the opportunities available.
Take Brighton, for example - a sophisticated bomb with a very long duration timer, planted by experts.
Now that was an opportunity generated by the skill and intelligence of the IRA unit responsible - the only error was that they used too little a charge and missed the prime target.
Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah? I'm still withholding the $20,000 per year that I used to spend on visits to the US and I know a lot of other people in the same situation.
Not all of us care enough about the falling dollar to compromise our morals.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Back to Relevance (Score:3, Interesting)
During a group panel segment titled "2018: Life on the Net", Lessig stated:
There's going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn't necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You've got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.
Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said "of course there is".
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right, in a stopped clock kind of way, about Joe Q. Public not wanting to give up dangerous, polluting things. Sadly the bulk of your post is a bunch of straight up bullshit, distortions, outright lies, and just enough half truths to make it a floater instead of a sinker. Chances are you're aware of this and just don't give a shit, as long as you can keep your toys. Thats fine.
Here's the thing though: Its not sustainable. That'ss not ideology, that's just how it is. Joe Q. Public is living an unsustainable lifestyle, and that means that eventually, either something important is going to run out, or some combination of important things are going to become too expensive all in quick succession, and the rather robust system we live in is going to have a terminal shock. We can eat a certain amount of damage, but eventually the slams will hit resonance and the whole thing is going to go into a tailspin.
Is it possible to prevent this by preparing, planning, and mitigating? Sure. Will we do that? Not enough to save everyone.
When it comes down to it, it won't be citizens vs the military, it'll be everyone for themselves. Tanks, bombers, attack helicopters, and all the big toys are highly dependent on logistics and resupply and tend to break down if not given a lot of care. Small arms, especially the fun ones like the pump action shotgun and the AK-47, can stay in operation for years and years with minimal resource requirements.
The rifled barrel is the great equalizer. You don't need that much training to use it, and a band of starving English majors is going to be just as dangerous as anyone else after a year of pure survival mode. The lone survivalist libertarians will be off in their isolated patches, sitting on valuable stores of food, ammunition, clothing, and other supplies. They'll be the first to fall, either from the above mentioned pissed off gun toting liberals or the vestiges of the military-industrial-government overlords that still have a few working heavy weapons and a desire to get their hands on some easy canned goods and shotguns.
Nobody will be safe, and it will all be because douchebags today do their best to convince everyone that the people who are trying to work cooperatively, together, toward a common good are the enemy. You're sowing it, you better well fucking expect to reap it.
As for me, I'm fat, dimwitted, and have food allergies. I'll die quick, but I'll see you in Hell.
corporations (Score:3, Interesting)
Since corporations are inherently more powerful than individuals, and utterly amoral on top of that, they need to be kept in tight leash.
Probably the single biggest reason corporations are so powerful is because they give stockholders limited liability. However, in general, Libertarians would end that limited liability. Personally I probably wouldn't so far as to totally eliminate it, because of the limit on liability a corporation can take more risks than individuals can. This is why corporations were granted charters to begin with. The first two charters granted to corporations were given to the Honourable East India Company [wikipedia.org] in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company [wikipedia.org] in 1602. Both were shipping companies facilitating trade between Great Britain and the Netherlands and India respectively. Shipping was a financially risky business, ships could be attacked by pirates or be sunk by bad weather. If a shop was lost the ship owner was financially liable, for both the cargo and for the lives of the crew. No matter how wealthy an owner was they could lose everything, even their home. So charters were granted to corporations to limit the liability of stockholders, the most a stockholder could lose was the money they invested in the corporation. With this limit more people were willing to invest in shipping which boosted trade and benefited a lot of people.
However what is overlooked today was that a corporation had to serve the common, or public, good [yesmagazine.org]. If a corporation did not do so it could have it's corporate charter Revoked [co-intelligence.org].
While this sound fine on the surface, it would make investing an unacceptably high risk activity for anyone who can't watch the company full-time.
Actually it shouldn't take that much tyme or effort, no more than people should take anyway. Stockholders should hold the corporation accountable. They need to read any and all proxies they get and make sure they understand them. They can support shareholder resolutions. They need to be Activist Shareholders [wikipedia.org]. If that's too much work, then they can invest in Socially responsible investing [wikipedia.org], SRI, mutual funds [socialinvest.org]. Anyway, those who are active in their investments and oppose something the corporation does that causes harm or supports responsible and sustainable activities shouldn't lose their limited liability. Also corporate executives should be held responsible as well. Other than the captain not one person was held responsible the Exxon Valdez nor was anyone held accountable for the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.
The core libertarian principle of removing government control would allow powerful entities to get away with whatever they want, because with government power gone, who's going to stop them ?
Government control is not the same as the control a court can wield. I have not heard of one Libertarian who wants a weak justice system. Actually I bet many would prefer to make it easier for people to sue corporations. Then if it is found it is not serving the public good then it's charter can be revoked.
Libertarianism would lead to the return of feudalism, which was, after all, rule by those who owned the land and could thus afford to hire armies to enforce their will,
I suggest you research the economics of slavery. The economics of slavery [lewrockwell.com] was unsustainable. It cost more to hire and keep an army than it costs to pay freemen a living wage. It was Libertarians, then called Liberals as in