Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Its been around for 6 years, yet I have just learned about Awareness Month. Does that mean the federal government is starting to move on cybersecurity? If they are, is it the right direction?
As Gene Spafford says at Cerias:
"As I write this, only about 27 more days before everyone slips back into their cyber stupor and ignores the issues for the other 11 months."
The entire great post on government security theater can be found at:
http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/site/blog/author/spaf
I am afraid that the totally dysfunctional government is more committed to catering to the influential lobbying efforts of friendly defense contractors, who are in turn very patriotic towards their cash cow contracts rather than actual national security.
"As I write this, only about 27 more days before everyone slips back into their cyber stupor and ignores the issues for the other 11 months."
The entire great post on government security theater can be found at:
http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/site/blog/author/spaf
I am afraid that the totally dysfunctional government is more committed to catering to the influential lobbying efforts of friendly defense contractors, who are in turn very patriotic towards their cash cow contracts rather than actual national security.
In this post, but I am an optimistic type. Ever hopeful that we can dig our way out of this.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
This present government is also more concerned with developing more power over private industries than they are about serving "we the people."
I approve of the military, the CIA and the FBI having divisions dedicated to data infrastructure security and cyber crimes. I am not in favor of granting government carte blanc access to, and authority over, data infrastructure. We need to put government back in its place.
I approve of the military, the CIA and the FBI having divisions dedicated to data infrastructure security and cyber crimes. I am not in favor of granting government carte blanc access to, and authority over, data infrastructure. We need to put government back in its place.
You solve the cybersecurity problems facing us? I would love to hear everyone's opinions. We have to figure it out.
I see a three tiered approach to cyber security.
The top tier consists of;
*Military - Safeguarding government data here and abroad.
*CIA - Investigates and "fixes" foreign intrusion.
*FBI - Investigates and prosecutes cyber crimes committed by home-grown criminals against US citizens and businesses.
EDIT: In the event of a cyber attack perpetrated by foreign nationals on US soil, jurisdiction between the military and FBI would be determined by the nature of, and resources used in, the attack.
The second tier down consists of ISPs. Internet Service Providers may conference and/or work with the FBI and military liaisons to enhance overall network security.
The third tier includes users and businesses who would be responsible for the data under their roof.
That's how I would carve up responsibilities.
The top tier consists of;
*Military - Safeguarding government data here and abroad.
*CIA - Investigates and "fixes" foreign intrusion.
*FBI - Investigates and prosecutes cyber crimes committed by home-grown criminals against US citizens and businesses.
EDIT: In the event of a cyber attack perpetrated by foreign nationals on US soil, jurisdiction between the military and FBI would be determined by the nature of, and resources used in, the attack.
The second tier down consists of ISPs. Internet Service Providers may conference and/or work with the FBI and military liaisons to enhance overall network security.
The third tier includes users and businesses who would be responsible for the data under their roof.
That's how I would carve up responsibilities.
Yes indeed, two glaring omissions from my list. Yes, telecos and backbone companies would also be tier 2.
While I'm not a big fan of government in general, its the only real teeth that we have.
While I'm not a big fan of government in general, its the only real teeth that we have.
Is the Government doing enough? I would have to say no. The reason why is different than what many have been thinking. When looking at cyber security or any security for that matter, what is the root cause for having to have security? Dishonesty! Hacking is a form of dishonesty. So when we are looking at trying to secure our networks, we are using technology to do so. Perhaps the govt should make it against the law to be dishonest. It would clean up a lot of problems and even help the govt with their own problems. ehehehehe
what you say... if you don't say anything they can't get you for lying.
The 4rth amendment also protects your integrity in other ways. It is a very ingenious document.(I don't know what is causing this stupid carrot but I can't get rid of it!) The word is DOCUMENT - DAMN!!!
Congress would do well to study it, as they are bound to obey it - PERIOD!!
The 4rth amendment also protects your integrity in other ways. It is a very ingenious document.(I don't know what is causing this stupid carrot but I can't get rid of it!) The word is DOCUMENT - DAMN!!!
Congress would do well to study it, as they are bound to obey it - PERIOD!!
Warning I was just on the internet to vist E-Bay for about 20 mins. when I got off I ran Spybot Search and Destory it found nothing so I ran my Cyber Defender they found 3 infections and 2 spyware items so watch out if you depend on Spybot only,just lately I started runing my Cyber Denfender every time I get off the internet if I'am on the internet for an hour an go to different sites I end up with 20 infections and 10 spyware so beware the hackers are busy,no the gov. isn't doing enough to stop this an it has cost them millions because of the hackers Have A Great Evening Chuck
good ol' Spybot S&D is obsolete! I recommend Adaware for my clients now. I do this because it is the only free real time protection(Adwatch), I know of, that is pretty effective.
Only problem is, they've gone to a new hueristic engine, and that venerable Lavasoft utility can no longer be used on older PCs!
for malware you really need at least one real-time blocker and several good scanners.
SpywareBlaster is still one of the best host-file based utilities, that also has Active X protections that use NO CPU or RAM. It is a pretty effective blocking agent for some of the most dangerous stuff out there!
Cyberdefender is a anti-virus, I'm afraid it doesn't have a track record enough to allow me to recommend it.
Avast still is number one in the freeware AV solutions. I'd sooner use Windows Security Essentials than Cyberdefender, sorry! And I don't have to worry about any surreptitious removals of money from my credit card by Cyberdefenders habits. I don't know why folks complain about this, maybe they got support and didn't know they had to pay for it!
Only problem is, they've gone to a new hueristic engine, and that venerable Lavasoft utility can no longer be used on older PCs!
for malware you really need at least one real-time blocker and several good scanners.
SpywareBlaster is still one of the best host-file based utilities, that also has Active X protections that use NO CPU or RAM. It is a pretty effective blocking agent for some of the most dangerous stuff out there!
Cyberdefender is a anti-virus, I'm afraid it doesn't have a track record enough to allow me to recommend it.
Avast still is number one in the freeware AV solutions. I'd sooner use Windows Security Essentials than Cyberdefender, sorry! And I don't have to worry about any surreptitious removals of money from my credit card by Cyberdefenders habits. I don't know why folks complain about this, maybe they got support and didn't know they had to pay for it!
i have to say this. i always get stuck helping people "fix" their pcs. 99% of the time, its spyware or a virus they either got from downloading something stupid in an email or they're looking at porn. when im using windows, i dont have any sort of anti-virus software and i havent had a virus or any spyware in the longest time. i scan it with spybot or adaware every once in a blue moon and never have anything. so, my point is, stop being stupid and stop looking at porn.
The answer to the problem of Cyber security is not to hand over to the Federal Government the ability to control all aspects of the internet. Even if the Feds did lock it all down, how does that stop malicious activities like malware, spyware and DOS attacks that come from overseas which is more often then not where the bulk of the bad stuff originates?
The answer is that with a small amount of limited over sight & regulation by the Government, specifically a department whose activities are transparent so as to keep them honest (not that Politicians ever sell us out for money), we should let the private/business world deal with security in as best a way as possible that does not restrict the average users use of the internet. This means absolutely NO preferential treatment of one customers access/use to the net over another?s as would the case with McCains improperly titled INTERNET FREEDOM ACT of 2009.
There is risk with use of the internet and while it has become more important to our daily lives we should never become solely dependent on it for that is a big mistake. The internet should remain one of several methods for the sharing of information. The only way to ensure fair use of the internet is to allow for the risk of attacks and problems. Certainly we could make reductions in the level of problems that arise from the bad guys out there but there will always be some risk unless you completely lock it down which would then in effect limit its use and make it simply a control mechanism controlled by the powerful.
Right now we as a world are more connected and by association more informed then we ever have been. This is because as of current those in the minority who would control/manipulate those of us in the majority, as has been done with our financial capital by the international bankers and the who Credit Default Swaps BS, have not yet been able to restrict information on the internet as they have in the more traditional forms of information sharing often referred to as the main or general media. Case in point are the use of presidential signing statements which have been used by every president since Regan and maybe even Carter (haven?t verified Carter yet).
Maybe some of you learned about signing statements in your economics class but they sure didn?t tell us about when I was in Highschool in the late 80s. And my wife who is a college graduate from the mid 90?s had never heard of a signing statement till I mentioned it. Had you ever heard about a president executing a signing statement prior to recent years, back before the internet became so prominent? I never heard about it. While there is still some debate of the legality of their use, there is certainly hot enough to warrant a mention in the nightly news and yet not only do many not know what a signing statement is, but a good number claim that these are conspiracy theories. You can find info on these at Wikipedia, something we did not have pre-internet.
The internet in its wild west like form is why we everyday citizens are as informed about what is going as we are. Sure there is a lot of bogus/bad info out there but that does not justify a lockdown of the whole thing. If we let the federal government or even the state level governments take control of cyber security we might as well go back to getting all of our news & info from the TV and news paper b/c the age of the truly last free press will be gone and short or some way of telepathic communication, there will be nothing on the horizon to replace it.
Before the internet we would have taken the word of whatever financial specialist the news would have as a guest, that the crisis was the fault of all those folks who got adjustable rate loans who clearly could not afford them. Thanks to the openness of the net we now know this explanation was at best dishonest and at worst an outright lie and attempt to sell the general public that their neighbors were to blame and not the super wealthy who had made billions thru dishonest practices.
BTW, the telepathy comment is meant as sarcasm. That?s for those who?d use that one comment to discard everything I?ve listed in this post as bull or conspiracy nut job stuff.
The answer is that with a small amount of limited over sight & regulation by the Government, specifically a department whose activities are transparent so as to keep them honest (not that Politicians ever sell us out for money), we should let the private/business world deal with security in as best a way as possible that does not restrict the average users use of the internet. This means absolutely NO preferential treatment of one customers access/use to the net over another?s as would the case with McCains improperly titled INTERNET FREEDOM ACT of 2009.
There is risk with use of the internet and while it has become more important to our daily lives we should never become solely dependent on it for that is a big mistake. The internet should remain one of several methods for the sharing of information. The only way to ensure fair use of the internet is to allow for the risk of attacks and problems. Certainly we could make reductions in the level of problems that arise from the bad guys out there but there will always be some risk unless you completely lock it down which would then in effect limit its use and make it simply a control mechanism controlled by the powerful.
Right now we as a world are more connected and by association more informed then we ever have been. This is because as of current those in the minority who would control/manipulate those of us in the majority, as has been done with our financial capital by the international bankers and the who Credit Default Swaps BS, have not yet been able to restrict information on the internet as they have in the more traditional forms of information sharing often referred to as the main or general media. Case in point are the use of presidential signing statements which have been used by every president since Regan and maybe even Carter (haven?t verified Carter yet).
Maybe some of you learned about signing statements in your economics class but they sure didn?t tell us about when I was in Highschool in the late 80s. And my wife who is a college graduate from the mid 90?s had never heard of a signing statement till I mentioned it. Had you ever heard about a president executing a signing statement prior to recent years, back before the internet became so prominent? I never heard about it. While there is still some debate of the legality of their use, there is certainly hot enough to warrant a mention in the nightly news and yet not only do many not know what a signing statement is, but a good number claim that these are conspiracy theories. You can find info on these at Wikipedia, something we did not have pre-internet.
The internet in its wild west like form is why we everyday citizens are as informed about what is going as we are. Sure there is a lot of bogus/bad info out there but that does not justify a lockdown of the whole thing. If we let the federal government or even the state level governments take control of cyber security we might as well go back to getting all of our news & info from the TV and news paper b/c the age of the truly last free press will be gone and short or some way of telepathic communication, there will be nothing on the horizon to replace it.
Before the internet we would have taken the word of whatever financial specialist the news would have as a guest, that the crisis was the fault of all those folks who got adjustable rate loans who clearly could not afford them. Thanks to the openness of the net we now know this explanation was at best dishonest and at worst an outright lie and attempt to sell the general public that their neighbors were to blame and not the super wealthy who had made billions thru dishonest practices.
BTW, the telepathy comment is meant as sarcasm. That?s for those who?d use that one comment to discard everything I?ve listed in this post as bull or conspiracy nut job stuff.
We are not a Hive.
Freedom include freedom to suffer the consequences.
In my mind the constitution sets up for three thing the government (federal) should involve itself in.
The first is protecting the Interstate spanning system of communication called the internet and its components. Not to extend to ISP, Business and personal.
Second the Internets systems extend past our borders. This means that a military need exist and should be covered by either the existing arms or a new one for that purpose. I'm not one for military build up of any kind but few organizations can effect the kind of reaction speed and overall power that the US military can.
Lastly the intelligence agencies need to retain the ability to operate well and warn leadership both public and military of threats. Those computer threats become more flesh and blood every day. Malay extremist planning plane hijackings, Chinese mil-comm spying on diplomats or ukraine syndicate laundering money from credit card. (apologies for finger pointing at malay, chinese or ukrainian's)
For internal crime the states have laws that cover fraud, theft, murder, and every other possible contingency. We don't need laws covering some little "Cyber" contingecy only people in law enforcement and forensics trained to investigate the details of those crimes.
Individuals are the only agency able to truly protect their rights.
Freedom include freedom to suffer the consequences.
In my mind the constitution sets up for three thing the government (federal) should involve itself in.
The first is protecting the Interstate spanning system of communication called the internet and its components. Not to extend to ISP, Business and personal.
Second the Internets systems extend past our borders. This means that a military need exist and should be covered by either the existing arms or a new one for that purpose. I'm not one for military build up of any kind but few organizations can effect the kind of reaction speed and overall power that the US military can.
Lastly the intelligence agencies need to retain the ability to operate well and warn leadership both public and military of threats. Those computer threats become more flesh and blood every day. Malay extremist planning plane hijackings, Chinese mil-comm spying on diplomats or ukraine syndicate laundering money from credit card. (apologies for finger pointing at malay, chinese or ukrainian's)
For internal crime the states have laws that cover fraud, theft, murder, and every other possible contingency. We don't need laws covering some little "Cyber" contingecy only people in law enforcement and forensics trained to investigate the details of those crimes.
Individuals are the only agency able to truly protect their rights.
What would be your suggestion to protect the command and control systems of the electrical grid? It crosses state borders and connects different private companies
Proper federal agency DOE, with state controls on generation and local distribution.
Done correctly in my mind except for its tendency to limit expansion of nuclear, and the Clinton era decision to eliminate the High level nuclear waste reduction research.
Remember that power distribution extends past the borders to Canada also.
Canadian hydro-power is pretty cheap.
Smart Grid is where we get to bad government in my mind. Should be left a state and local issue.
Bad enough that some power companies are tantamount to sponsored monopolies.
Just look at Enron to see how bad laws generate fantastic profits.
Laws disguised as de-regulation of a market in fact regulated and focused control of that market to a larger controlling entity.
Who then made money from a ridiculous system of trading energy that can't exist in reality.
We can't afford the government regulating our security. An entity like MS or some other large player will take control at our expense and consumers will pay just like California when Enron got control of the energy markets. Internet rolling blackouts anyone?
I believe however the backbone of the internet can be federal managed just fine.
Consider it a strategic asset for distributed command and control.
Harden it against attacks and have redundant fail safes.
Make it neutral, untaxed and simple.
Done correctly in my mind except for its tendency to limit expansion of nuclear, and the Clinton era decision to eliminate the High level nuclear waste reduction research.
Remember that power distribution extends past the borders to Canada also.
Canadian hydro-power is pretty cheap.
Smart Grid is where we get to bad government in my mind. Should be left a state and local issue.
Bad enough that some power companies are tantamount to sponsored monopolies.
Just look at Enron to see how bad laws generate fantastic profits.
Laws disguised as de-regulation of a market in fact regulated and focused control of that market to a larger controlling entity.
Who then made money from a ridiculous system of trading energy that can't exist in reality.
We can't afford the government regulating our security. An entity like MS or some other large player will take control at our expense and consumers will pay just like California when Enron got control of the energy markets. Internet rolling blackouts anyone?
I believe however the backbone of the internet can be federal managed just fine.
Consider it a strategic asset for distributed command and control.
Harden it against attacks and have redundant fail safes.
Make it neutral, untaxed and simple.
I tend to agree with the state versus interstate/inter national idea. I still don't see how it all comes together without some kind of overseer.
Michael, I'm with you, but unless I misunderstand your point I don't see why the overseer needs to be a new government agency.
It should look something like this: Federal Agencies make sure the power company adheres to federal regulations, the state makes sure distribution meets needs, but the overseer is ultimately the one at the most risk - the power company itself. The power company creates a position, one empowered to work with state and federal agencies, to benefit the company and its customers. We don't need another government agency to oversee this.
It should look something like this: Federal Agencies make sure the power company adheres to federal regulations, the state makes sure distribution meets needs, but the overseer is ultimately the one at the most risk - the power company itself. The power company creates a position, one empowered to work with state and federal agencies, to benefit the company and its customers. We don't need another government agency to oversee this.
How would they all work together? I prefer your approach, yet see all sorts of who's in charge going on.
I expect the three parties, the federal law enforcement agency, the state's energy liason and the energy companies overseer would each have authority over their respected areas but the one responsible is ultimately the energy company rep. The energy company rep must make sure his company meets federal laws and guidelines for security and is meeting the state's consumer needs to the satisfaction of the state. But all three should be involved in the discussions and be aware of what security measures are taken.
I envision a relationship where federal and state governments shape requirements based on the realities of the power plant's infrastructure.
I envision a relationship where federal and state governments shape requirements based on the realities of the power plant's infrastructure.
Why would the entities want to do this? It will cost them money. Is that passed on to the consumers?
money to get states to do it anyway! =)
Even Republicans haven't been able to refuse that!
Even Republicans haven't been able to refuse that!
point to your suggestion anyway; if you can get congress to actually follow the Constitution. Those that have actually read it, and understood it.
You cannot force the states to do anything outside the bounds of the Constitution because of states powers; this is why it was so hard to force RFID on the states, and thank God they didn't!
You can only use enticements and carrot sticks to get the mules going in the direction that the federal congress wants you to go. Now when it come to Federal powers, the central government can do what it wants - like Armed Forces, Marshall's service, and Secret Service, etc.
You can only use enticements and carrot sticks to get the mules going in the direction that the federal congress wants you to go. Now when it come to Federal powers, the central government can do what it wants - like Armed Forces, Marshall's service, and Secret Service, etc.
I think that the "Smart Grid" was a good idea that has become perverted in the hands of its implementors, and we probably, eventually, will need federal protection for electricity consumers, especially for individuals, families, schools and other government agencies, and small businesses.
Quote: "Just look at Enron to see how bad laws generate fantastic profits. "
Maybe you should consult a dictionary for the meaning of "fantastic" and "fantasy". If Enron was so profitable, then why did it so suddenly go bankrupt??
Quote: "Just look at Enron to see how bad laws generate fantastic profits. "
Maybe you should consult a dictionary for the meaning of "fantastic" and "fantasy". If Enron was so profitable, then why did it so suddenly go bankrupt??
Please say you are joking about this.
Its not that the company Enron was profitable so much as the power behind it, like the bankers and the recent TARP/Bailout BS. Even though the financial institutions cried BROKE they managed to come out on top and with more profit than ever.
Can you say #330+ Billion in 1 quarter is not an incredible profit level?
By using the speculative gambling practice called leveraging, which thanks to those idiots in congress, is no longer capped to a ratio of 10:1, the power connected & uber wealthy that were hooked into Enron as either investors or employees high up the management food chain, they were able to turn over billions in profit on a company that in the end, filed for bankruptcy.
Now to the rest of us with at least half a brain (those without at least half a brain are busy watching reality TV) this makes no sense b/c it is counter-intuitive; highly illgiocal. But to this small group of financial power kings it makes perfect sense and that?s because they live in a fantasy world were 1 + 1 does not equal 2 but $100 to $100 when dealing with the income or profit side and is equal to 1cent or less when dealing with the expense or loss side.
They are able to do this thru creative accounting (we normal folks call this dishonest accounting) practices that lets them legally lie/report on what they have and thru the use/practice of unlimited leveraging.
Yes in this day and age, if you are connected and already wealthy, VERY wealthy, the risks of profit & loss in the financial market does not apply to you and so there is no risk. And it will continue like this until we ordinary folks, which far outnumber these guys, say enough is enough and we are not going to let you continue giving us the shaft. It?s all about keeping those not part of the elite/powerful/wealthy ignorant to what is actually going on. This is not crazy conspiracy talk but simple economics & math. Two things that seem to be less common in schools as each generation comes along. So instead of making sure Joe & Susie Smith understand ecomics enough so as to not be made a debit slave from, we instead focus on making sure they feel like they fit in with the group and that nobody has offended them in some way.
Crazy mixed up world.
Its not that the company Enron was profitable so much as the power behind it, like the bankers and the recent TARP/Bailout BS. Even though the financial institutions cried BROKE they managed to come out on top and with more profit than ever.
Can you say #330+ Billion in 1 quarter is not an incredible profit level?
By using the speculative gambling practice called leveraging, which thanks to those idiots in congress, is no longer capped to a ratio of 10:1, the power connected & uber wealthy that were hooked into Enron as either investors or employees high up the management food chain, they were able to turn over billions in profit on a company that in the end, filed for bankruptcy.
Now to the rest of us with at least half a brain (those without at least half a brain are busy watching reality TV) this makes no sense b/c it is counter-intuitive; highly illgiocal. But to this small group of financial power kings it makes perfect sense and that?s because they live in a fantasy world were 1 + 1 does not equal 2 but $100 to $100 when dealing with the income or profit side and is equal to 1cent or less when dealing with the expense or loss side.
They are able to do this thru creative accounting (we normal folks call this dishonest accounting) practices that lets them legally lie/report on what they have and thru the use/practice of unlimited leveraging.
Yes in this day and age, if you are connected and already wealthy, VERY wealthy, the risks of profit & loss in the financial market does not apply to you and so there is no risk. And it will continue like this until we ordinary folks, which far outnumber these guys, say enough is enough and we are not going to let you continue giving us the shaft. It?s all about keeping those not part of the elite/powerful/wealthy ignorant to what is actually going on. This is not crazy conspiracy talk but simple economics & math. Two things that seem to be less common in schools as each generation comes along. So instead of making sure Joe & Susie Smith understand ecomics enough so as to not be made a debit slave from, we instead focus on making sure they feel like they fit in with the group and that nobody has offended them in some way.
Crazy mixed up world.
someone from Texas is so full of it. I doubt your origination as much as mine.
If you are from Texas you just moved there from California, just like the rest of the idiots from that state.
I am not magnanimously wealthy, and do not have to be to understand how our economic system works. Yes there are plenty of faults, but blaming the clueless rich is just as stupid as suddenly declaring socialist/communism some how works all of a sudden.
Get a clue, what our system needs is democracy in the stock ownership system. All the credible economists are calling for it, and even some Republicans are too. Imagine that! - That we owners would have a say in what we own?
Get a clue anti-turd blossom!
If you are from Texas you just moved there from California, just like the rest of the idiots from that state.
I am not magnanimously wealthy, and do not have to be to understand how our economic system works. Yes there are plenty of faults, but blaming the clueless rich is just as stupid as suddenly declaring socialist/communism some how works all of a sudden.
Get a clue, what our system needs is democracy in the stock ownership system. All the credible economists are calling for it, and even some Republicans are too. Imagine that! - That we owners would have a say in what we own?
Get a clue anti-turd blossom!
It's not your fault you can't understand or follow this line of reasoning or that when faced with something you can't legitimately counter you resort to name calling instead of counter points to make your case. It?s far easier to pick this week?s Dancing With The Stars winner (so long as none of your military buddies are around else you could be looking at a beating) then to be concerned with what is effecting the real world. It?s amazing that even as you type your response you can?t see how it falls into the Right Side? (of the Right-Left paradigm) cookie cutter mindset you?ve been programmed with which is to respond with any criticism of anyone with any level of wealth as being anti-democracy and or anti capitalist.
You say to imagine we owners having a say in what we own and yet what do you really own that is of any value? Aside from the clothes on your back and small scale items you actually do not own anything. Even if you have a car you don?t really own it even after you?ve faithfully made all your payments to the bank. This is because you will forever and always owe a debt on it in the form of a property tax. You also have the annual inspection fee (depending on what state you reside in). As for that most desired of all American ownership, the home; this too you do not own and never will. This is because of the property tax on it.
Did you know that before big government (hard to call it big government then when you compare the size of the Feds between the and now) decided we all needed to be in permanent debt to the government thru the form of taxes, there was no property tax? Even in Europe they were without property taxes for a while but just like us they got suckered into the tax scam by being sold it was a tax on the rich. When the Income tax was introduced in the US it was taunted as being something targeted at only the wealthy, to get them to pay their fair share of the American expense. Didn?t take long before all but the poor found themselves part of the ?Wealthy Class? and had to start paying taxes on their income.
So long as the government can take from you your property for non-payment of a tax they have imposed, you will never truly own anything. You may perceive to have ownership but that is a faux perception. Just so you don?t misread that, faux means ?fake? and is not some fancy slang word intended to be derogatory like the colorful anti-turd blossom you so creatively used.
What you do however have the choice to act upon is to continue draining away what brain cells you have left by sitting in front of the TV watching your reality programming; being programmed to react in specific ways to specific stimuli. I know this can be scary, even to a hardened soldier like yourself but it is worth it to break free from the pre-defined paradigm you?ve been placed in by your environment.
And BTW, I don?t blame the clueless rich; I blame the very clued in and extremely wealthy. These folks have used the rest of us to increase their wealth in assets and capital. That?s assets as in things you posses of value and not a slang word for your back side. Please be sure to respond with more colorful insults and template like responses so that the rest of us may have fun at your expense.
You say to imagine we owners having a say in what we own and yet what do you really own that is of any value? Aside from the clothes on your back and small scale items you actually do not own anything. Even if you have a car you don?t really own it even after you?ve faithfully made all your payments to the bank. This is because you will forever and always owe a debt on it in the form of a property tax. You also have the annual inspection fee (depending on what state you reside in). As for that most desired of all American ownership, the home; this too you do not own and never will. This is because of the property tax on it.
Did you know that before big government (hard to call it big government then when you compare the size of the Feds between the and now) decided we all needed to be in permanent debt to the government thru the form of taxes, there was no property tax? Even in Europe they were without property taxes for a while but just like us they got suckered into the tax scam by being sold it was a tax on the rich. When the Income tax was introduced in the US it was taunted as being something targeted at only the wealthy, to get them to pay their fair share of the American expense. Didn?t take long before all but the poor found themselves part of the ?Wealthy Class? and had to start paying taxes on their income.
So long as the government can take from you your property for non-payment of a tax they have imposed, you will never truly own anything. You may perceive to have ownership but that is a faux perception. Just so you don?t misread that, faux means ?fake? and is not some fancy slang word intended to be derogatory like the colorful anti-turd blossom you so creatively used.
What you do however have the choice to act upon is to continue draining away what brain cells you have left by sitting in front of the TV watching your reality programming; being programmed to react in specific ways to specific stimuli. I know this can be scary, even to a hardened soldier like yourself but it is worth it to break free from the pre-defined paradigm you?ve been placed in by your environment.
And BTW, I don?t blame the clueless rich; I blame the very clued in and extremely wealthy. These folks have used the rest of us to increase their wealth in assets and capital. That?s assets as in things you posses of value and not a slang word for your back side. Please be sure to respond with more colorful insults and template like responses so that the rest of us may have fun at your expense.
Did you mean "effecting" or "affecting" in your first paragraph?
I'm sure if you review it, you may see that one way as opposed to the other would take your argument to a place you don't appear competent to visit.
I'm sure if you review it, you may see that one way as opposed to the other would take your argument to a place you don't appear competent to visit.
Why do you ask questions for which you already know the answers? Is it due to a need to feel self important?
It's funny you should questions another?s competence being that you are a TLA addict from a state that's broke just about every record on what not to do to be successful.
BTW, a TLA addict is one who uses numerous three letter acronyms in their profile and or signatures because they feel they must prove their superiority to the rest of us plebian?s.
It's funny you should questions another?s competence being that you are a TLA addict from a state that's broke just about every record on what not to do to be successful.
BTW, a TLA addict is one who uses numerous three letter acronyms in their profile and or signatures because they feel they must prove their superiority to the rest of us plebian?s.
I don't know the answer. That's why I asked: Which one?
The TLAs are of TR's default doing.
The TLAs are of TR's default doing.
"@Ed..
Let Caesar take what is Caesar's; the rest they'll have to take over my dead body. " ~ @JCitizen
I have to admit that you have me confused because yoo sound both like a pro capitalist/free market/Individual Rights kind of person but at the same time you go and defend those who act in tyranny.
Let me refine my prior comments as you may have misunderstood them. When it comes to cpaitalism & free markets I am a fan and when it comes to wealth I agree that no one should have their wealth forcibly taken by the government be it state federal or local. That being said, when those who can would abuse the free market system (in otehr words cheat) and thereby not particpate in the way it was designed, then those persosn do not get the same rights & freedoms regarding their wealth for they did not earn it but stole it from others thru (at best) unethical and or (at worst) out right illegal actions.
And just because something isn't illegal it does not mean it isn't wrong. Take the example of Naked Short Selling. Goldman-Sachts bet against Bears-Stern and turned 1.7 million into hundreads of millions of dollars, all the while selling to their customers the same trash they themselves bet against. This is playing both ends against the middle and that is not particpiating in the free market in an ethiocal way and so they deserve to be stripped of what they have obtained.
This goes for the lower level folks who while they may not have made the decission to act in an unethical way, they still knew it was wrong and decided to jump on the bandwagon anyway.
Let Caesar take what is Caesar's; the rest they'll have to take over my dead body. " ~ @JCitizen
I have to admit that you have me confused because yoo sound both like a pro capitalist/free market/Individual Rights kind of person but at the same time you go and defend those who act in tyranny.
Let me refine my prior comments as you may have misunderstood them. When it comes to cpaitalism & free markets I am a fan and when it comes to wealth I agree that no one should have their wealth forcibly taken by the government be it state federal or local. That being said, when those who can would abuse the free market system (in otehr words cheat) and thereby not particpate in the way it was designed, then those persosn do not get the same rights & freedoms regarding their wealth for they did not earn it but stole it from others thru (at best) unethical and or (at worst) out right illegal actions.
And just because something isn't illegal it does not mean it isn't wrong. Take the example of Naked Short Selling. Goldman-Sachts bet against Bears-Stern and turned 1.7 million into hundreads of millions of dollars, all the while selling to their customers the same trash they themselves bet against. This is playing both ends against the middle and that is not particpiating in the free market in an ethiocal way and so they deserve to be stripped of what they have obtained.
This goes for the lower level folks who while they may not have made the decission to act in an unethical way, they still knew it was wrong and decided to jump on the bandwagon anyway.
@santeewelding..
If your question of "whch one" was genuine (it read very much like sarcasm, a back handed commment) then I sit (while typing) corrected.
If your question of "whch one" was genuine (it read very much like sarcasm, a back handed commment) then I sit (while typing) corrected.
If you "affect" reality, or "effect" reality.
Either way, you are screwed.
Your further onus, you see, is to lay out the long, the short, and the middle of, "reality".
Lay it on us.
Either way, you are screwed.
Your further onus, you see, is to lay out the long, the short, and the middle of, "reality".
Lay it on us.
Sorry if I blowup on the subject. I just get tired of so much criticism of the system we use, when actually it only needs some legal tweaking to greatly improve it.
I'm not particularly anti-tax, just anti-fraud-waste-and abuse. Some times it seems like you have to grab the fox by the throat to keep him from eating the chicken.
In other words I think Repulicans are so anti-tax, because they deliberately want to starve the system into failure, so the programs they don't like will simply die on the vine.
If they would just put into place the anti-fraud/waste/abuse system the armed forces use, there would be way less of it, and more benefit to go around actually improving our lives.
I'm not talking about procurement, that is still the military/industrial establishment mess that Eisenhower previously warned us about.
I'm not particularly anti-tax, just anti-fraud-waste-and abuse. Some times it seems like you have to grab the fox by the throat to keep him from eating the chicken.
In other words I think Repulicans are so anti-tax, because they deliberately want to starve the system into failure, so the programs they don't like will simply die on the vine.
If they would just put into place the anti-fraud/waste/abuse system the armed forces use, there would be way less of it, and more benefit to go around actually improving our lives.
I'm not talking about procurement, that is still the military/industrial establishment mess that Eisenhower previously warned us about.
You may enjoy using poetic sounding lines and or just plain listening to your own words out of some need for self-aggrandizement but regardless (bet you hoped I'd use the word irregardless so you can again show off for the rest of us by pointing out its not a rela word) of the reason for doing so you aren't fooling me. You know when a typo is a typo, something very easy to do when one doesn't have nothing more to do then post internet replies. Most of us are lucky just to have time to run spell checker.
Your orginal question was disengenous as reinforced by your last reply where you revealed yourself with the "screwed" comment. Had you not dropped that line I might have been fooled and bought into your dishonest plea of genuine curisoity.
Good luck next time even though you probably don't need being that you like to use initimidating like repsonses. Just know that there are many out there you can still bully into doing what you want. But you better act fast before your governor does something really nuts like decided to cut off internet access to California residents because use of it produces too much carbon or some similiar BS.
Your orginal question was disengenous as reinforced by your last reply where you revealed yourself with the "screwed" comment. Had you not dropped that line I might have been fooled and bought into your dishonest plea of genuine curisoity.
Good luck next time even though you probably don't need being that you like to use initimidating like repsonses. Just know that there are many out there you can still bully into doing what you want. But you better act fast before your governor does something really nuts like decided to cut off internet access to California residents because use of it produces too much carbon or some similiar BS.
When politics is involved, we must think in political, not tecnical terms.
The most important thing that government protects is itself from its own citizens. Everything else is secondary.
Everything the government does is geared toward gaining more control over everything, in this case the communication infrastructure. This always was one of the key levers of power.
Security and well being of the serfs is only as important as the victory on the next elections.
So, if you let government deal with cyber security, you'll get a lot of senseless legal obstacles, a lot of invasions into your privacy, they might even manage your perceptions into feeling secure, but actually, you'll be less secure.
Government would enact mandatory spyware to monitor all your activities, but wouldn't care about hackers stealing your passwords. It would put camera's in to your bedroom, but wouldn't care about peeping toms taking advantage of them.
PS: Before someone start to argue like: "Hey wait a minute, this is America, beacon of freedom, land of the free, home of the brave, things are totally different here, our politicians are better than others, they never lie, and their farts smell like violets!"
No, American politicians are no different. All politicans, all governments are guided only by one interest: Power. The only difference is whether their underlings are willing to admit it or not.
The most important thing that government protects is itself from its own citizens. Everything else is secondary.
Everything the government does is geared toward gaining more control over everything, in this case the communication infrastructure. This always was one of the key levers of power.
Security and well being of the serfs is only as important as the victory on the next elections.
So, if you let government deal with cyber security, you'll get a lot of senseless legal obstacles, a lot of invasions into your privacy, they might even manage your perceptions into feeling secure, but actually, you'll be less secure.
Government would enact mandatory spyware to monitor all your activities, but wouldn't care about hackers stealing your passwords. It would put camera's in to your bedroom, but wouldn't care about peeping toms taking advantage of them.
PS: Before someone start to argue like: "Hey wait a minute, this is America, beacon of freedom, land of the free, home of the brave, things are totally different here, our politicians are better than others, they never lie, and their farts smell like violets!"
No, American politicians are no different. All politicans, all governments are guided only by one interest: Power. The only difference is whether their underlings are willing to admit it or not.
History has to agree with you. But, how would you fix the problem?
Do you agree that something needs to be done?
Do you agree that something needs to be done?
As my company's shiny new core app was making its way towards prodution, we had about a week long visit by a group of security consultants. They made a thorough security check, and held a couple of courses for the staff. As far as I can tell, they were quice competent, their CIO had a PhD in Computer Science. The very first thing they told us was: "Security of information systems can't be achieved by fancy equipment. You can't throw money at this. The only thing that helps is your brain. You'll be secure if, and only if you use it". The literal phrase he used was "you gotta throw your brains on the table".
National Cybersecurity Awareness Month basically conveys the same message: "OK, people, let's think about our IT security for a moment, shall we? Rethink your security policies, try to figure out holes, use your brains!" That's what governmnet can and should do, but no more.
So called "Cyber threats"? That's the usual exaggeration. They would better be called "cyber annoyances", and they don't need special attention.
As for the system of vital importance, like military, medical, power grid, and such... it's generally a VERY bad idea to connect this stuff to the communication channel used by general public for entertainment. It's the real world equivalent of tearing down all security fences around military objects, power plants, etc, and expecting everyone to behave.
National Cybersecurity Awareness Month basically conveys the same message: "OK, people, let's think about our IT security for a moment, shall we? Rethink your security policies, try to figure out holes, use your brains!" That's what governmnet can and should do, but no more.
So called "Cyber threats"? That's the usual exaggeration. They would better be called "cyber annoyances", and they don't need special attention.
As for the system of vital importance, like military, medical, power grid, and such... it's generally a VERY bad idea to connect this stuff to the communication channel used by general public for entertainment. It's the real world equivalent of tearing down all security fences around military objects, power plants, etc, and expecting everyone to behave.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
