Cybersecurity or Censorship? The Choice Is Ours

Well said

It's sad that these officials try sporadic measures to try and assume a result. You would think that a well-thought group of people could come up with something better. But they end up acting like emotional parents that don't know how to control their kids, so they do someting drastic and ineffective.

Sounds to me like we need to stand up to these poor attempts at 'controlling the masses'.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/13/san-francisco-transit-blocks-cellphones-to-hinder-protest/

This recent article shows Cell phone towers were disabled in San Francisco to prevent protester communication via mobile devices.  I am interested in your thoughts.

Excellent points, Mike. Clearly placing the controls where they are needed is the goal.

DHagar

@DH "There needs to be a separation so that communication channels are uninhibited but that there are security layers for specified transactions or uses on the internet."

REMEMBER: The hacking is not in the Net: it's in the ENDPOINTS*

~~

*ENDPOINTS: malware can be located in your computer, or the server you are connecting to, or both.

You computer might look like a black box to you but to a hacker it's a plaything waiting to be re-programmed. USING YOUR LOGON

After you recognize you have been hacked, first the adrenalin flash hits, and then:

Oh!! I never thought they could get in that way!!

Hackers are like mice: they follow every path they can find, looking for a way in, and this includes doors that are left un-locked -- whether physical aluminum/glass -- or -- computer data paths -- as shown above.

I agree, Kim, that people do not realize, or think of, how compromised their information security is on the web.

I think part of the problem is that the web is being used as a utility for everything, communications, commerce, financial management, government communcations, legal documents, etc.  There needs to be a separation so that communication channels are uninhibited but that there are security layers for specified transactions or uses on the internet.

I agree with the premise of the blog that opening the door to government control of this vital resource may be an irreversible lock on our freedoms.  I further agree that we do need security measures that protect our national interests, utility grids, etc., and protections in the commerce transactions, just as there are with EFT, etc. 

So we need a better map that places the important government controls where there is needed protection and minimize government control over our precious communication channels.

DHagar

@Kim

"No, I don't think we are quite there yet."

if your son or daughter came to you and asked: "Dad, should I do online banking?"

how would you respond?

would your conscience allow you to respond other than "no"?

@Mike.   No, I don't think we are quite there yet.  The current security environment is much worse than most people believe - but most people are still content to send personally identifying information and credit card numbers over speculatively secure connections to all kinds of recipients.

When people get too scared to do that, cybercommerce will be in trouble - and so will the open Internet.

@Kim

As Jonathan Zittrain has argued, an utter breakdown of security - something which no longer seems impossible - will in its own way drive people away from using rhe Internet as an open communications highway.

are we not already there?

~~

@mjstreufert

I believe government should be hands off the internet under any circumstances.

I commend to you

• The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Liberty, Article 19
• The UN Participation Act

You might be interested in what Article 19 says

Article 19      [ UN Covenant on Civil and Political Liberty ]

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in
the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are
provided by law and are necessary:

 (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

 (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
     public), or of public health or morals.

you may not use the First Amendment as a defense if charged (e.g.) with spraying grafitti on buildings around town; yelling "fire" in the theatre, defamation of character in your writings, publishing someone else' copyright material, or filing a false police report etc. such things are violations of other ordinances -- which you would have to over-turn on first amendment grounds before you could mount an effective defense... and I don't think that's likely

But that doesn't dilute the Spirit of the First Amendment -- which was intended to permit critique of public officers...

this will continue to be a contentious topic. Tyrants will always move to control communications.

Mary, I do not know why they would propose something like this.  I do know that the U.S. Government has grown by leaps and bounds since the New Deal.  I don't know what the end result will be, but I personally don't like the path we are on.