Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Republicans Security United States Your Rights Online

McCain Asks For Committee On Wikileaks, Anonymous 268

Posted by samzenpus
from the meetings-fix-everything dept.
Trailrunner7 writes "In the face of continued attacks on federal agencies and contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton and IRC Federal that do highly sensitive security work for the U.S. government, Sen. John McCain has asked Senate leaders to appoint a select committee to look into the attacks and data leaks that have plagued Washington throughout 2011. In a letter to Democrat leader Harry Reid and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, McCain (R-Ariz.) said that a temporary Senate committee is necessary in order to get a handle on all of the disparate cybersecurity legislation proposals and to address the threat posed by groups such as Anonymous, LulzSec and Wikileaks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McCain Asks For Committee On Wikileaks, Anonymous

Comments Filter:
  • Yep, a committee. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2011 @11:55AM (#36763652)
    That oughta solve the problem, by garsh!
    • "I truly believe the only way to ensure the protection of sensitive and valuable information from tampering or dissemination by unauthorized persons is a Select Committee,"

      YEAH! ROCK ON OLD MAN!

    • I believe this poster fully describes the issue [despair.com].
      • by LifesABeach (234436) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:46PM (#36764384)
        I think the honorable senator from Arizona should let the F.B.I. do their job of hunting down bad guys. Maybe the honorable senator should focus on America's political obsession with maintaining inequitable Trade Balances? And while the honorable senator is on the subject of what to do today in Washington D.C.; how about the honorable senator look into closing tax loopholes for Oil Companies, and Hedge Fund Managers? Just a thought, senator.

        Republican since '71, and damn proud of it
        • "For the worst thing that could possibly happen, this is actually going extremely well."

        • by geekoid (135745)

          Elected officials have more then one thing they do.

          And many of these issues are OUTSIDE FBI responsibility.

          Bring all the disparate attempts to deal with this issue together is a SMART thing to do.

          • by slick7 (1703596)

            Elected officials have more then one thing they do.

            And many of these issues are OUTSIDE FBI responsibility.

            Bring all the disparate attempts to deal with this issue together is a SMART thing to do.

            More committees? These idiots and their committees are going to put us in the poor house, oh wait.
            As I said, these idiots are so busy looking busy that nothing gets done. No term limits, no balanced budget, no end to any war, continuous payoffs from corporate america. The last thing this country needs is an investigation into wikileaks. If anything should be investigated, the truth of these leaks and why they stopped being posted for the general population to determine the right or wrong of the situation. A

    • As opposed to what? Crowd source? Group think?
    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:38PM (#36764306)

      it worked in the 50's!

      we found SO MANY unamerican commies back then. we blacklisted their asses. really worked well and america is really proud of that era.

      (see woody allen film 'the front' for an easy-to-digest education on what went on in the 50's).

      • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:33PM (#36764906) Homepage Journal

        McCarthyism seems to have a lot in common with our new War on Terror.

        To be fair, the rabid fanatical commy hunters actually caught some commies. And, the terror warriors have actually bagged some terrorists. But, the cost? Just not worth it . . .

        • by Anonymous Coward

          The United States WAS crawling with communists. The Venona intercepts generated leads. Of course, it was classified, so most did not get access to that information.

          • by decora (1710862) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @02:45PM (#36765814) Journal

            the venona decrypts were fascinating but there are several reasons i disagree with your interpretation (which has been repeated by many others)

            1. the actual decryption took decades, and was not finished until the 70s or 80s, so during the actual mccarthy period of the late 40s early 50s, many of the contents of the crypts were not known.

            2. alot of the decryption was of poor quality

            3. alot of it used various code names

            4. the biggest problem of all, is that you are decryption messages from KGB(NKVD)field agents back and forth to headquarters. the Soviet Union was built on a system of faking your reports and your production numbers, no matter what your field, in order to meet quotas and keep from getting executed. they couldnt even get a reliable census going in the 1930s because politics worked its way into every bureaucracy of the country. to believe the venona decryptions at face value, you have to believe KGB(NKVD) agents statements to moscow at face value, which to me seems like a horrible way to research history.

            5. alot of them are 'proven' by cross referencing them with the statements of elizabeth bentley or others. what was her source? the same agents who were writing the cables back to moscow.

            the venona has a lot of fascinating information in it and shows a lot of soviet inlfuence in ameirca, but alot of those 'leads' were fucking bullshit.

            you can just look at the 'Silvermaster Files' for information, take Bela Gold for example. they put his wife under surveillance. what intelligence do they get? she went shopping. she met with other suspects for an hour here, an hour there. she went shopping. she got pregnant. case closed. Thats the 'damning evidence' somebody wanted to use in a courtroom.

            since in America the courts are somewhat independent (unlike, say, the soviet union) the government dropped these cases. Venona couldnt be used in courtrooms not simply because it was 'classified', but because it was unreliable garbage.

            then take alger his and whittaker chambers. they decided the laws were not good enough to prosecute him, so they broadened them. what did that leave us with? the Espionage Act subparagraph (e) , which is now being used against whistleblowers like Thomas Drake...

            and of course the Emergency Detention Act, completely unconstitutional and cancelled by Nixon when he became president. Think about that. it was too draconian for Nixon.

    • by Dracos (107777)

      "Convene the dang committee!"

      Soon he'll say something about all hackers being Mexican Muslims.

    • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @02:48PM (#36765870)
      About fucking time. It's a crime to leave your car running unattended (being for reasons of promoting theft). So when you are in charge of 3rd party's data, it should be a crime to use security measures so weak some script kiddies can hack in for Lulz, that should be a federal felony.

      Thank God they are finally getting around to addressing this criminal negligence. Go Committee Go!
  • by Kenja (541830) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @11:56AM (#36763660)
    He clearly knows the most about the internet out of all the senators, so unless he's part of the commitiee it will be a total farse!
  • False Flag Working! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TaoPhoenix (980487)

    "Oh my gawds these terrorist groups! The little children can't play on the internets - uh wait, there are no children in either of those groups, only Juvenile Terrorists, which are not children anymore!"

    • I've been wondering about the false-flag possibility, too. These recent high-profile "national security" hacks seem like just the perfect threat to justify the kind of internet regulation that certain quarters in government would like to see imposed anyway, and for their own purposes.

    • by mcvos (645701) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:21PM (#36764118)

      If they really want to do something productive, they should investigate how it's possible that government contractors are so incompetent when it comes to computer security.

    • by Translation Error (1176675) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:22PM (#36764132)
      Except he's not talking about going after the evil terrorists. He's talking about coming up with plans to protect key systems from cyber attack

      We must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more from a cyber attack.

      and prevent leaks at the source.

      developing adequate safeguards to detect and defeat any insider threat of disclosure of classified documents such as we experienced with the Wikileaks fiasco

      • Except he's not talking about going after the evil terrorists. He's talking about coming up with plans to protect key systems from cyber attack

        We must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more from a cyber attack.

        and prevent leaks at the source.

        developing adequate safeguards to detect and defeat any insider threat of disclosure of classified documents such as we experienced with the Wikileaks fiasco

        Great. Call the NSA and the FBI, they have been thinking about this for decades. We don't need more laws. Just ask the damn experts we already have and follow the guidelines they already came up with...

  • Harry Reid is a Democrat, not a Republican

    • Difference being? (Score:5, Informative)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @11:59AM (#36763722)
      In America, you have a choice between the party that works for one set of corporations, or the party that works for another set of corporations.
      • Re:Difference being? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nadaka (224565) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:03PM (#36763800)

        The set of corporate masters are not mutually exclusive, they overlap more than they do not.

      • by gnick (1211984) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:03PM (#36763802) Homepage

        That is blatantly unfair and derogatory. Suggesting that the parties discriminate between which set of corporations they work for is ridiculous. All dollars are created equal.

        • by foobsr (693224)

          All dollars are created equal.

          Not quite yet, but soon, when the debt hits the fan and all those dollars will be created from thin air.

          CC.

        • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:34PM (#36764248) Homepage

          Ahh, but they have to pick and choose between which corporations they get bought by. I think this scene from The Distinguished Gentleman explains it all:

          TOMMY (Eddie Murphy) Sugar price supports. Where do you think I should be, Tommy?
          O'CONNOR Shit -- makes no difference to me. If you're for 'em, I got money for you from my sugar producers in Louisiana and Hawaii. If you're against 'em, I got money for you from the candy manufacturers.
          TOMMY You pick.
          O'CONNOR Let's put you down as for. Now what about putting limits on malpractice awards?
          TOMMY You tell me.
          O'CONNOR Well, if you're for 'em, I got money from the doctors and insurance companies. If you're against 'em, I got money from the trial lawyers. Tell you what, let's say against. Now how about pizza?
          TOMMY I'll stick with the salad.
          O'CONNOR Not for lunch, shmuck, for PAC money. A lot of the frozen pizzas use phony cheese. There's a law pending requiring them to disclose it on their labels. Where do you stand?
          TOMMY If I vote for the labels...then I get money from the dairy industry...
          O'CONNOR Good...
          TOMMY And if I vote against the labels, I get money from the frozen food guys.
          O'CONNOR Excellent! And don't forget the ranchers, because they get hurt if pepperoni sales go down!
          TOMMY A pepperoni lobby. I love this town.
          O'CONNOR So which is it?
          TOMMY Fuck the cheese people. Thanks to them my office smelled like smelt for a week.
          O'CONNOR All right. For.
          TOMMY So Tommy, tell me -- with all this money on every side, how does anything get done?
          O'CONNOR It doesn't! That's the genius of the system!

          • TOMMY So Tommy, tell me -- with all this money on every side, how does anything get done?
            O'CONNOR It doesn't! That's the genius of the system!

            What's missing from this analysis is that if there really was equal money for every side, that would leave the politicians free to do the right thing because the effect of the money would cancel out, it would be the equivalent of having no money.

            Of course it really isn't that way - there's rarely much money on the side of the average joe.

        • All dollars are created equal.

          in america, it was supposed to be "one man, one vote". but it has turned into "one dollar, one vote".

      • Re:Difference being? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bit trollent (824666) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:13PM (#36763982) Homepage

        Uh.. let's see...

        The republican party is fighting to cut funding for important government programs while cutting taxes on the rich.

        The other party is seeking to raise taxes on the rich to fund important government programs. Programs like pell grants, infrastructure, education, and health care.

        Only a total fool wouldn't be able to tell the difference as they parties play a dangerous game of brinkmanship with our national credit rating.

        People who don't know the difference between our conservative and progressive parties are part of the reason that our political system is so broken. Politicians are playing us for fools, because we are too ignorant to tell the difference.

        • by Nadaka (224565) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:17PM (#36764052)

          The democrats are a conservative party. The republicans are a regressive party. We don't really have a progressive party.

          • Democrats may (as a group) be more conservative than european progressives, but that doesn't change that democrats are the progressive influence in American politics.

            Democrats passed:

            • Economic stimulus
            • Universal healthcare
            • Financial reform(including consumer protection)
            • Unemployment insurance extensions
            • US Auto industry bailout

            That seems pretty progressive to me.

            • Re:Difference being? (Score:5, Informative)

              by guspasho (941623) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:52PM (#36765112)

              Democrats may (as a group) be more conservative than european progressives, but that doesn't change that democrats are the progressive influence in American politics.

              Hardly.

                      Economic stimulus - that failed to do more than keep the economy from catastrophic collapse, and did nothing to actually improve the economy
                      Universal healthcare - that forced every citizen to become captives of the private insurance market
                      Financial reform(including consumer protection) - HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! (that means I think you're joking because that's so transparently wrong)
                      Unemployment insurance extensions - yeah, minor
                      US Auto industry bailout - and don't forget banking industry bailouts! Now how exactly is it progressive to bail out the biggest, most powerful companies and fail to bail out any one else, particularly the millions of victims of the massive fraud perpetuated by the banks?

              Now we have a "progressive" party that's offering to gut Medicare and Social Security, two of the most critical and important parts of the social safety net - and fix a budget problem that's caused by securities fraud, while the fraudsters are lavishly enriching themselves even further with bailout money!

              Sorry, but you're wrong. There may be a few progressives among the Democrats, but they have no power to enact any kind of progressive policy, and as Obama should have taught us, could simply be outright lying. Democrats stopped being progressive when they sold their souls to the corporatists. Now it's just two conservative parties battling for the attention of the big bucks and completely lying to the rest of us.

          • by ukpyr (53793)

            +1, awesome observation.

        • by iceaxe (18903)

          While I sympathize with your point of view, and wish I could still believe the same, I think you give both parties too much credit.

          Neither party gives a flying ____ about what happens to the people they claim to represent. While the noises that come out of their mouths may seem to be in support of or opposition to one idea or another, the truth is that every squeak, and every vote, is calculated for political value and nothing else at all.

          One party is telling lies that appeal to one segment of the populati

        • Only a total fool wouldn't be able to tell the difference

          Apparently, the parties themselves aren't too clear on the distinction. See Political Parties Take United Stand Against Their Own Principles [urban.org] (not the Onion, though the headline sounds like it).

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      No problem, there is no difference between the two parties so their names can be used interchangeably.

    • INdeed.
    • Why ruin a good rant with facts.
    • by jeffmeden (135043)

      Harry Reid is a Democrat, not a Republican

      You're right, it should have read: "In a letter to fellow bureaucratic brother-from-another-party Harry Reid and one-eyed king of the blind minority Mitch McConnell..."

      That looks right.

    • by Svippy (876087)

      Harry Reid is a Democrat, not a Republican

      Also, the Republicans are the minority in the Senate. Woop woop woop. Sounds like a mishap.

    • by bracher (33965)
      ...and Mitch McConnell is _not_ the majority leader. Wishful thinking on the part of the submitter?
      • If it was wishful thinking, you'd think he would have gotten it straightened out who Reid is. Most Republicans don't like Reid.
  • I think he would've had better luck just coming here and asking them kindly to stop rather than ticking them off. (I'm assuming some of those guys read /..) Not that that would stop them either, but they might put a positive spin on the data they release.

  • From the guy who thought Sarah Palin would make a good vice president. Why do people even bother to listen to him anymore. The country is bankrupt, but he thinks it can afford yet another committee.
    • by OzPeter (195038)

      From the guy who thought Sarah Palin would make a good vice president.

      I remember hearing that Sarah was forced onto him and he was not happy with that choice at all. I listened to McCains campaign, and while I disagreed with his viewpoint I did respect his intelligence and how he went about doing things.

      • by nedlohs (1335013)

        Surely that's worse. I'm not sure you want a guy who just does what he is told even when he thinks it is the wrong thing to do running the country. Will he keep doing that when he's running the show?

        • I think you need to take a step back and and be aghast at a presidential candidate "being told" who to take on as his vice-president. If that scenario happened, then who exactly is running the show?
    • Why do people even bother to listen to him anymore.

      Do you really have to ask that?

      A depressingly large segment of this country is like this [youtube.com]. And you really are surprised that these people are listening to McCain?

      • A depressingly large segment

        That's quite vague.

        And you really are surprised that these people are listening to McCain?

        If we take the number of people who shoot themselves in the calf and have them all vote for McCain, he probably won't get elected.

        I disagreed with McCain on a number of things, but he actually seemed to be one of the more straightforward and willing-to-compromise/work-with-the-other-side politicians.

  • by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:03PM (#36763790) Homepage
    The summary does hit on one thing that is a systemic problem in Washington, a myriad of separate bills to address an issue. Each of these bills probably only focuses on a few things (if you remove the pork and vote buying crap) but when all are taken together you end up with one giant confusing mess.
  • by javakah (932230) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:05PM (#36763828)

    Looking into why we are paying so much money to security contractors that can't even secure their own servers.

  • I guess his "email girl" finally told him about it?

  • This should be entertaining.

  • by seanadams.com (463190) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:07PM (#36763858) Homepage
    What are teh lulz? Why would anybody do this just for them?
  • Horrible summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:10PM (#36763924)

    The summary is 10% facts and 90% moronic rambling by the submitter. If you actually read the letter, you'll see that McCain was specifically referring to insider threats such as the Bradley Manning case. He doesn't mention Anonymous or LulzSec at all.

    • Re:Horrible summary (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zill (1690130) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:23PM (#36764136)
      McCain:

      I write to renew my request that the Senate create a temporary Select Committee on Cyber Security and Electronic Intelligence Leaks. I feel this Select Committee is necessary in order to develop comprehensive cyber security legislation and adequately address the continuing risk of insider threats that caused thousands of documents to be posted on the website Wikileaks.

      Emphasis mine.

      I wish there was a "Parent is right. This story is 50% bullshit and 100% trolling. Let's delete it." mod. When 5 people use that mod then the story gets automatically deleted.

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      The summary is 10% facts and 90% moronic rambling by the submitter.

      On Slashdot? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

  • The most important question to ask about LulzSec is which branch of the U.S. government is responsible for it. Is it the NSA, the CIA, or the military. The most important question about information security in regards to WikiLeaks is why doesn't the U.S. government secure it's information. Manning just downloaded everything. He didn't do anything special.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      They're worried about the problem with Anonymous and LulSec? If they can break your security you should assume that any foreign enemies of the state have at least the same capabilities and haven't been notifying you of their success. Secure your data or get it off public networks. WikiLeaks is a separate matter, but again it could be handed to your enemies alone rather than the world in general.
  • by X86Daddy (446356) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:21PM (#36764116) Journal

    We keep seeing court cases and lively debate over "Freedom of the Press," usually with regards to whether this blogger or that product reviewer etc... have a right to say what they say without "press credentials" or a large corporate news organization backing them, etc... A lot of self-professed "patriotic" US citizens want Wikileaks destroyed.

    So where does the phrase "Freedom of the Press" come from? First Amendement of the US Constitution:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    At the time this was written, what was "the press?" What was the relationship between the authors and founders of this country and "the press?" The press was a nifty machine that several of these men owned... a printing press. They used these devices to take their speech and propogate it further than mere voice could. They used this kind of speech to foment revolution against an unjust government and the press was a vital tool in this effort. Upon establishing a new government, they sought to extend that protection to all citizens.

    So, when someone issues communications through technology, that is the press protected by the 1st Amendement.

    • by k6mfw (1182893)

      >"So, when someone issues communications through technology, that is the press protected by the 1st Amendement."

      Post of the Month! Good examination.

    • by ScentCone (795499)

      So, when someone issues communications through technology, that is the press protected by the 1st Amendement.

      What nonsense. Is fraud (which happens to be "issued through technology") protected speech? How about libel? How about good old fashioned treason? Do you really find yourself claiming that all communication is equally protected?

      None of what you're mumbling has anything, whatsoever, to do with copying thousands of classified documents and working with a politcally motivated outside group and their vain, publicity-hound master to get them into the wrong hands. The very founders who valued and expressly de

  • by mlts (1038732) * on Thursday July 14, 2011 @12:21PM (#36764122)

    A committee means one thing -- more laws. We all know about the bad laws that can be passed (more DRM, tossing some guy who logs on as his ex on FB in prison for 50 years, etc.) However, maybe some good can come out of it:

    1: Money spent to have on staff more blackhats/whitehats. Perhaps we need another branch of the Armed Services just dedicated to intrusion prevention and hardening?

    2: Certifications for cloud providers. This would include the government stepping in and either erasing or physically destroying all the cloud storage media if the provider got shut down, went bankrupt, got sold to a foreign company, etc. This way, even if the company tanked, all client data would be destroyed, so unlike now, the client data can't just be handed to the next owner of the servers for them to do what they want. The certifications would also include physical inspection, network inspection, host inspection, process inspection, tiger team testing, etc. We do this with hardware and software (FIPS, Common Criteria, EAL), why not cloud computing?

    3: Funding for US fab technology for sensitive components like TPMs, firewalls, and other items. This way, there is solid knowledge that an Elbonian backdoor isn't waiting for just the right time to shut down a router or allow intruders in.

    4: Funding for a B2B backbone infrastructure where it is preplanned what machines communicate to each other. This way, a bank's computer can send info to a credit card processor, but can't send anything to a baseball card shop unless they have a prior relationship. Preferably have this on separate fiber than the regular Internet. This way, critical business items can be isolated from Internet escapades. Think NIPRNet or SIPRNet, but for businesses.

    5: Funding to work on a standard like VNC/Citrix/MS Terminal Server, so that people traveling do not require physical access to data, just access to a terminal server. This way, a blackhat has to compromise a locked down terminal server before they can get to the juicy stuff like Exchange or the like.

    6: Grants to universities for better OS and hardware security models. Some computers used to have two addresses for RAM, one just for data, one instructions, and never did they meet. Things like that would be transparent to the user, but would greatly increase security. Same with operating systems that could hand Web browsers privileges by window/tab, so that a compromised tab couldn't get to the tab right by it that the user is doing banking with. Designing machines from the ground up to treat all Web content as hostile would greatly reduce the amount of malware floating around, just like firewalls have reduced incoming attacks.

    7: A hardened device for storing passwords similar to a HSM for public keys. This would be extremely useful in LDAP setups as well as websites that have user accounts. A hacked server does not mean wholesale user compromise.

    8: A standard TPM that can be added to all computers, but may or not be present. This would allow computers to have a TPM card dropped in if someone wanted it, but it wouldn't present, so the DRM writers couldn't force gamers to use it for additional lockdown.

    9: Funding to design a standardized filesystem/LVM similar to ZFS, except that it is not patent encumbered, and can be used by all and sundry, either with all features, or a subset. The only filesystem across platforms these days is either FAT/FAT32, or the CD-ROM format. The reason this would increase security is that tools that can be used on many platforms can identify issues and fix them, especially at the LUN level (pop a snapshot of a LUN, have the SAN scan for viruses to find rootkits that the infected machines can't detect.)

    These may be expensive, but at least some of the stuff would at least help things in a substantial manner. Passing more laws with longer prison terms will do jack squat for security overall, except make the private prison owners richer. You have to fight technical battles with technology.

  • ...Transparency...... We can all see right through this...

  • A committee to do -what- exactly? It sounds like a "group of Good 'Ol Boys to handle whoever we suspect of this, without proof, without judicial oversight, in any manner we choose"...

    I would be outraged, but who didn't see this coming from the GOP boys?

    Their tagline must be "We can't figure out how they're doing it, and we don't know who's doing it, but if we start locking up and executing folks who we THINK did it, maybe they'll get scared and stop."

    McCain, et al: Perhaps if you weren't corrupt right-winge

    • A committee to do -what- exactly? It sounds like a "group of Good 'Ol Boys to handle whoever we suspect of this, without proof, without judicial oversight, in any manner we choose"...

      Well, in general, when Congress forms a committee, it's for the purpose of investigating a problem and drafting appropriate legislation to fix the problem.

      Which legislation is subject to the usual judicial oversight.

      Now, if this were the Executive Branch, we'd be talking "without proof, without judicial oversight, in any mann

  • Most of Washington is pretty clueless when it comes to technology in general. Hell, that goes for most of the populous.
    But congress specifically is atrociously bad. And I think it's mostly an age factor. They simply didn't grow up with this stuff. They're rooted in the old ways. McCain is a fine guy. I didn't vote for him, but he's a good guy to have in congress. I just wouldn't trust him with handling this sort of problem. In the least.

    Ok, case in case in point, he doesn't understand network neutrality.
  • He damn well better demand an investigation of News Corp. too. Only fair, O'Reilly.
  • I can't believe this got posted to the front page. I really can't. If you look at the Slashdot Guide to Trolling, it has many of the elements - intentionally false information, baseless claims, and states things the linked article says nothing about.

    First, Harry Reid is a democrat, not republican, and the letter does not refer to Anonymous or any other organization. It talks only about inside threats such as the Bradley Manning case.

    Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick, don't the editors even do a tiny bit of summ

  • Stop doing so many things that will be embarrassing if exposed to the light of day.

    • we need to remove the concept of patriotism.

      why? this leads to the falacy of 'my country, right or wrong'. it means you blindly follow your country and don't question.

      is that what we want?

      I'd like a world (and a pony, too) that questions everything, like in geometry: you make a statement, right next to it is the necessary proof or backup for it. each and every step has a justification and can be argued and debated and verified.

      the exact opposite of how we make laws.

      we are broken, the world over. in thou

  • Slashdot Monday: Anonymous/Wikileaks is going to expose and bring down the corrupt US government.

    Slashdot Thursday: How dare the Senate consider whether Anon/WL is a threat to the US government?!

  • How about the United States Government NOT do things which cannot stand up under scrutiny and the light of day so that "leaks" are irrelevant? How about training your ambassadors to give you accurate representations of foreign dignitaries without the colorful asides and random bashing and hate mongering? Why don't we inject some actual ethics back into our government?

    Let every other country degrade themselves and their citizens into a police state BUT let _this_ country remain a shining beacon for freedom a

  • And who is going to fund the efforts of the new committee?

  • by Vitriol+Angst (458300) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:14PM (#36764720)

    We cannot have private groups picking up the slack for our stenographer media. After burning Dan Rather and firing numerous other investigative journalists, and imprisoning more reporters in the Iraq invasion than were imprisoned in all other wars combined -- I thought we made it clear that we do not want investigative journalism.

    Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, are a threat to our incompetence and graft -- and we'd really appreciate being able to continue this "war on whatever" scam so that we can burden the middle class with lots of debt that will require austerity -- we cannot train your kids to be indentured servants if we continue this concept of "RIGHTS" and such, now can we?

    The only way to win the war on Terror, is to allow your military, government and secret services, total access to everything, no responsibility or questions on failure or missing Billions, and to be able to say; "nothing to see hear, move along." With the lack of transparency, we reserve the right to humiliate and/or jail the people who speculate on Conspiracies. Not that they are a threat, we just don't like those geeky twerps and we enjoy crushing the nuts of someone -- so it might as well be them.

    After that brain fart, McCain would go back to his soft spoken tones as if he were a reasonable adult, and use words like "concern", "responsibility" and "prudence." As if he gave a rats ass and wasn't thinking about the Poker and Prostitutes party at Boehner's house this Friday night.

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving

Working...