Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi x-point
But I don't want a racist in the White House, no matter which Party or which race he or she represents.
Please provide me with a racist quote that comes from Obama, not a person somewhere in his community.
I'll save you the search, there isn't one, and if there was, it would have been flashed across the internet many times over by now. In fact, if Obama had been running about saying things of the type that Rev. Wright has, he would never have been a serious candidate for President. He never would have been able to attract campaign staffers of the quality that he has, or funding in the manner/amounts that he has.
This racism charge will not be an issue. The Republicans will not go there, and even if some among the Republican community take it upon themselves to spread this stuff around the Internet, it won't work. There is nothing there, and it requires a twisting of -well, I was going to say words, but there aren't any of Obama's to twist-....I suppose it is a situation that is being taken out of context and twisted. Those in the Republican community who think this is a good tactic should analyze what has happened when the Clintons have made these types of attacks on Obama. He has gotten more support, not less. Moderate Americans won't support these tactics. Unless, of course, an actual quote exists somewhere....
X-point
One quick question if I may. Could they be "right"? I am not saying at all that I agree with the position, only that I understand the realm of thought from where it has originated. I work amongst a large number of inner city poor who feel their country, their president, and their economy have left them behind. Right or wrong, it is a real sentiment that I think others who have not witnessed can not possibly come to grips with. I have watched over 5,000 middle class jobs leave our community of 150,000 people over the last six years. Don't kid yourself, those job losses have devastated our city and its families. And no, I do not think our economy, our state, or our nation is better off importing from China those same products these workers once made here. The american middle class WAS built on the fact that a quality manufacturing job offered economic opportunity to those whose other skills otherwise left them short of a white collar existence. The economic dislocation of these people is real and very painful to witness. They do not have the skills others need, and they are settling for whatever service secttor job they can find at whatever wage they are lucky enough to get.
I left college as a Reagan Republican. Others here can attest to that fact. The republican party I see today is a fraud compared to the ideals of Reagan. It can easily be argued that the current neo-con outsourcing through what they call "free-trade" has left these people behind. There is a chapter in Patrick Buchannon's (sp) book "Where the right went wrong" where he calls the Neo-cons and the Bush administration's economic policy TREASON. A chapter, I might add, that many of you should read.
One simple idea of his to keep in mind. When you farm out quality paying jobs and replace them with minimum wage service jobs you destroy the base of wages used to buy the pubic goods at the very heart of our collective wealth. A nation that doesn't make anything, is a nation without a tax base. A nation without a tax base is a nation without roads, schools, public health care, etc.. I am a free market capatalist who is alarmed at the excesses of executive pay in a time when american workers are working harder for less. This economic inequality is one part of the disabling side of capitalism that only begs for change. I think this also explains to some extent what makes Obama an attractive candidate of change. Whether you like it or not, the "system" has not worked for millions of americans. When you add to that the perception of dissaray that eminates from Washington, the seemingly unending attack on freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt nature of these Neo-cons, you only add ingredients to the recipe for change.
Given the nature of the past eight years. Some are already whispering, while others are shouting, that the Bush Presidency might go down as one of, if not the worst, U.S. Presidency in our nation's history. How kindly will history look back upon that which we in the present hold in such disdain. Look at Bush's currnet popularity polls to see what the data shows, it does not look good to say the least.
One of the ironies here is that Carl Rove bragged not so long ago about the permanent republican majority and the end of the deomocratic party's ability to mount any type of challenge to the republican power. My how quickly things change. I am almost humored by the Blue fins and others who think the type of response we are all witnessing to the Obama story is some type of fluke. A repsonse best delt with through the old fashion tactics of the divisive politics.
There is a perfect storm brewing in no small part to the excessive abuses of the current presidency. For all of you who picture Obama as an easy target, you obviously have not let your mind wander down that road where the democratic party launches an all out assualt on the Bush administration's failures with the "if you elect McCain you get four more years of this crap" tag line. The political commercials will almost write themselves.
Just look at how many red states are in line to be plucked off by the democrats this fall and you then see why many political scientists see the Obama-Clinton race as the only race left to determine the next president.
With regards to your more specific points, Obama is far from a perfect candidate. But given the characteristics of the three people left for the position it can be easliy concluded that he represents the best opportunity for change, and if there is one easy to identify theme amongst the electorate it is that change is very appealing to millions of americans. The interesting question for republicans to chew on is how did it get this bad this fast? They really only need to look in the mirror. Their abuses, disregard for compromise, and any last trace of respect for our core national principles could and probably will leave them on the outside looking in.
I said it weeks ago, Mr. Obama your table is ready. When Hillary can't hold Texas, and eeks out a small win in Ohio but fails to make inroads in the delegate count it will be for all practical purposes over. Does anyone here really think McCain has any chance in a debate with Obama? If you do you are not being honest with yourself. The republicans will hold their core constituencies, they always do, but they will lose the moderate middle they need to form a winning coalition. The only real question left will be the length of Obama's coattails to sweep into office a democratic congress he will find more to his liking with respect to the policy changes he envisions. Potentially a republican mighmare in real time don't ya think?
Now back to lurking. You guys are having a hell of a conversation here. Maybe I'll return after the march 4th primaries to see if my crystal ball needs more polish.
Keeler
Hi csl,
Re dictionary. Hey, I'm just remembering some words. The clever folks are the ones who thought of them in the first place!
I know what you mean about mass euphoria being scary. Leaving space for criticism is important. But you can hardly make Obama culpable for the collective behaviour of his supporters. Is he meant to burp and throw rocks at people so that they begin to like him less?
Hi goin fishin,
I just can't buy into the double standard. If it came to light that a white candidate attended a church where the white minister preached racism from the pulpit the opposition party would be merciless in their attacks on him or her.
If that minister were to preach that the KKK was worthy of congregational support because, as they already knew, blacks had to be kept in their place for the good of the community, and our candidate sat there listening and nodding, I don't think there would be any hesitation to make a judgement call about the desirability of giving that person the power of office.
The supposed witness was the reporter and the timeframe was last summer. Why shoud I think that the Obama 'then' is different from the "man he is now".
I don't disagree that this racism doesn't play well in the black communities, just as the racism of Jessee Helms and Strom Thurmond played well in their communities. But I don't want a racist in the White House, no matter which Party or which race he or she represents.
Obama talks a good talk about inclusion and healing, but actions speak louder than words as the old saw goes. My point was just that this needs to be vetted out and he is going to have some explaining to do, and I think that before this election is over he is going to wish that he had gone to one of no doubt numerous other Black churches in the Chicago area that preached Christianity, without the hate.
Regards,
x-point
x-point,
What slightly worries me about what you are saying is that you seem to be imputing this preacher's words into Obama's philosphy.
I think you need to make your case out of Obama's words.
He was raised by his white mother and abandoned by his Kenyan father. So I rather doubt he holds the racist opinions I presume you think he is concealing.
Heck, I have Christian friends. Christianity has done a lot of harm to Moslems in its time. Does that make me a hater of Moslems?
Hi x-point
From your post:
There are black churches and then there are black churches, but the black church that we are talking about here is a racist black church led by a less that wholly patriotic reverand. To state that any politician that points this up is "playing the race card in a most foul manner" is rediculous.
From my post:
"In the days of the civil rights movement, (1950s, 1960s) Churches served as the organizing point for many of the efforts to obtain the rights promised in the Constitution. Churches were even bombed by White Supremecists, in an effort to derail or intimidate local civil rights pushes. During this time, some Black church leaders got a little tired of preaching "Turn the other cheek," when their parishoners were being abused and even killed. So, a degree of Afrocentrism, and militancy entered the Black church community. -And it is understandable that it did.-
Black leaders must honor this church based approach to civic organizing if they intend to lead any Black congressional district. The most vocal and powerful ministers are often the ones that adopt the most militant stances among the Black community. Black leaders must walk a line with these ministers, but it does not mean that they adopt the minister's views as a whole. Instead, they acknowledge that Black ministers have been, and continue to be extremely important in the Black community- and that if not for the efforts of Black ministers in the past, the leaders of today would not be able to exercise their civil rights on an equal basis with others in the U. S."
Black ministers are often the ones who stand up and say the thoughts/issues that are on the minds of many in the community. They are viewed as the driving force in the still occuring drive for full civil rights. Pointing out the wrongs that a White dominated society inflicted upon others is a part of this. To try to tar Obama with this brush is unfair to him, and the Black community in general. It is Jingoism wrapped in Swiftboating.
Look at what you really have here. Has Obama ever been quoted as saying any of this anti-America stuff? -No-
Is Rev. Wright only about being anti-America? Again, no. As a church leader, he serves a far wider purpose, and while I don't know much of him, I feel confident in saying that he may well do many good works behind the scenes. We can disgree with him on his anti-America stance without having to brand all in his church with that mark, and we can realize that just a few remarks are not the full measure of the man. Just like a few portions of Obama's past are not the measure of the man he is now.
Look also at the evidence that exists as to Obama's supposed agreement with Wright's 9/11 views. A supposed witness saw him nod when Wright was saying these things. I can only ask you, would you like this to be the standard for evidence which cast you in a negative light?
I think not.
Windows Server 2008, the host with the most
http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/news/489143897B06C497CC2573FA007620DE
Microsoft's big OS has always been designed under the presumption that it will have a full physical server to itself
By Tom Yager, San Francisco
Tuesday, February 26 2008
Excserpt:
Windows Server 2008 covers another flavour of virtualization in the form of Terminal Services. A mainstay of Windows Server, the big news in this release is its HTTPS tunnel, or Terminal Services Gateway. Edge security often blocks inbound access to the TCP ports needed by Terminal Services. The Terminal Services Gateway allows remote clients normally blocked by firewalls to access Terminal Services, without the hassle of VPN, but with full security and auditing.
Terminal Services Gateway will undoubtedly get played by competitors as an exploitable backdoor, but it's a much smarter way to control user access (internal as well as external) to network services. Terminal Services Gateway requires the application of Remote Access Policies (RAP) that define and enforce the characteristics of clients permitted access to Terminal Services, and remote services in general. A client that doesn't meet RAP's health tests and policies, such as a notebook that's plugged into your network by an internal hacker, can't get in through Terminal Services or any other means. Period.
Seriously? Absolutely. BitLocker local disk encryption can be defined as an enforced remote access policy. Users like encryption for privacy, but IT will love BitLocker. It uses a client system's Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to create a file access authentication path that users cannot bypass, even if they boot from a nonencrypted drive or overwrite the boot blocks on the local drive. If policies allow users to work with local copies of sensitive files, the TPM can ensure that files are unreadable away from the network, and they can't be copied to removable media.
More to the point, if you have a lapse in security that allows a user inside the firewall to suck in a database of customer information, when they get their client home they won't be able to read the files they've stolen. All access to Windows Server 2008 is revocable at the user, client computer, or group level. To absolutely, positively terminate employees' or contractors' network access, and access to locally stored files, the administrator need only create and distribute a new certificate. This is one of many simple ways to change the locks in Windows Server 2008.
This, too, will raise the hackles of those who don't like the idea of systems that users can't control, but they should know that BitLocker and RAP do not preclude the use of other operating systems, and they can be undone by someone with administrative privileges (another reason to extend these sparingly). Used properly, RAP, TPM, and BitLocker can obviate the necessity for client-side security agents and hardware such as USB crypto keys.
Hi goin fishn,
"I think that you will find that Obama may profess a liking or admiration for a Black minister, but that Obama's own actions will be far different from that Black Minister.
Most politicians understand this dynamic, and if Black chuches are in their districts, they visit them on a regular basis. For any politician to be using this as an issue against Obama is playing the race card in a most foul manner."
There are black churches and then there are black churches, but the black church that we are talking about here is a racist black church led by a less that wholly patriotic reverand. To state that any politician that points this up is "playing the race card in a most foul manner" is rediculous.
White America has just spent the last 40+ years trying to come to terms with its' own racism, but I don't think that means that we have to accept or be blind to the racism of others as some sort of pennance. I understand that others don't feel the same about this, but I believe they are in the minority, except perhaps in the media.
Critical self examination is desirable, but I just don't see the majority of Americans being that self-loathing as to elect a man that admires and supports a preacher that has said and done the things that this Rev. Wright has.
"Wright on 9/11: "White America got their wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." On the Sunday after the attacks, Dr. Wright blamed America."
and this:
"Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made."
Regards,
x-point
Obama photo in turban, robe causes stir
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_on_el_pr/obama_photo;_ylt=AuyYTkPTYXTOVfgE408T28hAw_IE
The last few swipes of a desperate campaign (Clinton's)
Folks-Obama's religion...
You all need to stop and think about something. Black churches have been the key organizing center for the Black community since the days of slavery. In fact, in some locales during slavery, the slaves were prohibited to have their own churches, for fear that they would be used as places to meet and organize. Immediately after the end of the Civil War, when they were freed, one of the very first things that the newly freed slaves did was build their own churches.
The new Black churches were filled with people whose issues and life experiences were drastically different from the surrounding White communities. They had been made to feel different, and inferior, and had been abused in ways that no animal, let alone human should have been treated. They made their churches different, partly from need, and partly to establish their own communal identities. They did not want their churches to be just like White folks. They wanted their own churches.
In the days of the civil rights movement, (1950s, 1960s) Churches served as the organizing point for many of the efforts to obtain the rights promised in the Constitution. Churches were even bombed by White Supremecists, in an effort to derail or intimidate local civil rights pushes. During this time, some Black church leaders got a little tired of preaching "Turn the other cheek," when their parishoners were being abused and even killed. So, a degree of Afrocentrism, and militancy entered the Black church community. -And it is understandable that it did.-
Black leaders must honor this church based approach to civic organizing if they intend to lead any Black congressional district. The most vocal and powerful ministers are often the ones that adopt the most militant stances among the Black community. Black leaders must walk a line with these ministers, but it does not mean that they adopt the minister's views as a whole. Instead, they acknowledge that Black ministers have been, and continue to be extremely important in the Black community- and that if not for the efforts of Black ministers in the past, the leaders of today would not be able to exercise their civil rights on an equal basis with others in the U. S.
I think that you will find that Obama may profess a liking or admiration for a Black minister, but that Obama's own actions will be far different from that Black Minister.
Most politicians understand this dynamic, and if Black chuches are in their districts, they visit them on a regular basis. For any politician to be using this as an issue against Obama is playing the race card in a most foul manner.
Orda,
It isn't only the republicans involved in corruption look up Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein scandles on google. Perhaps that isn't of interest, but it shows a much more serious problem than just the last 7 yrs of Bush.
bf
I believe, we, as Americans are going to have to require that the sun shines on all politicians. Also, there are those who want to ignore and cover the sunlight regarding those whos actions have been detremental to our country and its citizens, those individuals should never be considered for public office again.
There was this:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_rpt/fbirep.htm
It has been said that Craig Livingstone was hired by HIllary Clinton and I would support the premise that she should be held directly responsible for his actions, as he was only doing her bidding.
and this regarding Sandy Burger: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/sandy-berger-hid-stolen-911-documents-under-trailer
I would hope for the good of our country that we could all get on the same page for our countries sake, we don't have much time.
bf
Wow. So,
two market meltdowns, two wars, a severely divided country, politicization of everything, the scandalization of Washington (you would think that couldn't have gotten any worse), and the trampling of the Constitution is going to be outdone with the next President?
Again, wow.
orda,
Yes.
FISA isn’t the worst of it
February 25, 2008
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/02/25/fisa-isnt-the-worst-of-it/
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is just the latest salvo in an attempt to install a surveillance society in America. Don’t let anger at the Bush administration and Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) over the NSA blind you to a much larger problem. We need a comprehensive national policy on data collection and its use in both the public & private sectors. Privacy rights and the associated laws must be clarified and strengthened, taking into account the complexities of modern technologies. The wall between government and private industry must also be restored.
Theoretically, U.S. laws and policies restrict the government’s use of dossiers on individual citizens who are not under criminal investigation. President Carter’s Executive order 12036 prohibited domestic surveillance. There are no such laws preventing private companies from doing so, as long as they ensure that specific protected pieces of data (your social security number, for example) aren’t lost or stolen or otherwise compromised. And some people in the intelligence community have been trying to get their hands on that commercial data for years.
Knowledge for Sale
There are many companies that aggregate, or gather together, publicly or privately-available information about YOU - down to the household or even individual level - your job, your income, the value of your house, what kind of car you drive, how many children you have and where they are enrolled in school, what charities you donate to, what magazines you subscribe to, what political contributions you have made. One of the largest, Acxiom, has been in business since 1969, and according to its 2007 Annual Report, has total assets in excess of $1.65 Billion. Other well known data aggregators include Lexis Nexis, Experian, TransUnion, and ChoicePoint. Any public record can, and will, be added to these private databases. Remember that the next time you’re tempted to fill out a survey or a warranty card or sign up for a grocery store club card. Who do you think is paying for that discount?
All those records are analyzed for patterns, and those patterns create group profiles. For example, Acxiom has defined 70 specific “life stage segments” based on the kind of criteria above. And they’re good. (Disclosure: I worked at a dot.com startup some years ago that existed specifically to gather user data, so it could be sold to Acxiom. They went under less than a year after I quit. It was a stupid site.) Acxiom can infer - correctly - what kind of wine you might buy based on random-seeming datapoints such as your age, the car you drive, and the magazines you subscribe to. It’s creepy scary. Another firm, ChoicePoint, has its own niches in the market: insurance data, background checks, tenant screening, employment screening, and more.
Then these companies sell access to their data to anybody who will pay. You can find data aggregators who will help you: grow your business, develop market-targeted products, find a new customer, or win a campaign. If you need a list of names, there’s someone out there who has it and will sell it. How about a list of suburban households in their low 30’s with a combined income between $55-75K, three kids under 15, a Ford Taurus, and a subscription to Outdoor magazine? Or retired single childless teachers who wear prescription lenses and prefer Grey Goose vodka? Need to find out if a potential child care provider is a sexual offender? Write a check, run a query.
There are myriad ways these kinds of reports can be used to manipulate. The most obvious is in product development and marketing. If a company has a product line that’s not selling well, they can mine their customer data to identify the segments that buy the product, and focus their advertising and marketing on that segment. Or they can create marketing language that will appeal to a wider range of segments. This is Business 101 stuff. It’s fairly easy for an aware consumer to find the line between selling me what I want to buy, and convincing me that what I want is what you have to sell.
K Street meets Madison Avenue
Things gets trickier when you apply the technology to politics. It’s called “microtargeting,” and it’s a recipe for political manipulation on a whole new level. The Bush 2004 campaign began working with TargetPoint Consulting in 2003, testing the theories and technologies that would win the 2004 election, on several Pennsylvania judicial races. TargetPoint founder Alex Gauge believed “[t]he Bush majority would be made up of thousands of groups of like-minded voters whom the campaign could reach with precisely the right message on the issues they considered most important.” When TargetPoint’s 2003 projections came up 90% accurate, Rove knew he had a winning strategy. The Bush election machine found the exact hot-button issues for the necessary profiles (”Flag and Family Republicans” and “Tax and Terrorism Moderates” are two examples), and then pushed those buttons to convince individual voters to come out for him. At its best, microtargeting eliminates the expense and effort of campaigning to voters you already know will vote for you. At its worst, it’s virtualized gerrymandering - letting politicians select their constituents.
The problem is not that each group hears a targeted message, it’s that they don’t hear anything else. “Flag and Family” hears positioning on flag burning. “Tax and Terrorism” hears plans for security. Neither hears the whole story, even if they live next door to each other. And when you only hear what you want to hear, you’re missing an opportunity to grown and change. When you only hear your own individual message you miss out on ideas like the Common Good. You might come to think that the only good is what’s good for you. And then what happens to democracy?
And don’t think this is just a Republican dirty trick. Democrats are johnny-come-lately to the game but microtargeting, also known as narrowcasting, is used by both sides.
And I’m not saying that datamining technology is inherently evil. Technology is, in my opinion, value-neutral. The questions of morality must be applied to how the technology is used. Are you focusing your limited campaign budget to convince people who haven’t made up their minds yet, or are you telling me what I want to hear? Are you selling me what I want to buy or are you convincing me that I want is what you have to sell? What comes next, when Big Brother lives at the intersection of K Street and Madison Avenue? How do you even know if what you want is what you want or what you’ve been told you want by someone who knows you better than you know yourself? It’s Room 101 through the looking glass - here is your deepest desire, all wrapped up with a pretty bow. And while you’re enjoying your new toys or new candidates, liberty is slowly slipping away. You never even notice.
Total Information Awareness
Things get really hairy when you start looking at government intelligence databases. In the months after 9/11, the federal government was feverish to buy, build, or borrow, tools that would help identify potential terrorists. John Poindexter headed the creation of DARPA’s Total Information Awareness (TIA - which was quickly renamed the Terrorist Information Awareness) system, which the ACLU calls “the closest thing to a true ‘Big Brother’ program that has ever been seriously contemplated in the United States.” The stated goal of TIA was to build an umbrella that pulled together every conceivable intelligence system - public and private databases, surveillance systems, biometrics, and more - into a single system that could be monitored and mined for evidence of terrorist-like behavior. One place to go to, to find everything “we” know about everything.
The net effect of these efforts, however, resulted in what many have dubbed the Surveillance Society; a virtual panopticon of data mining and realtime snooping. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has obtained documents showing John Poindexter meeting with Acxiom board member General Wesley Clark in May and June of 2002 and an email between Poindexter and Lt. Col. Douglas Dyer discussing the usefulness of Acxiom data and capabilities in creating the TIA. Dyer mentions the need to respect citizens’ privacy concerns, (”[P]eople will object to Big Brother”), but follows with the suggestion that the system may, in time, need “huge databases of commercial transactions that cover the world.”
(Nerd alert: EPIC obtained a very high-level, fluffy-bunny design document of the TIA system. The document was written by Hicks & Associates, a wholly owned subsidiary of infamous defense contractor SAIC, and uses UML diagrams and Use Cases such as this one on page 18: “3.1.2.2.2.1 Generating Threat Scenarios - Generating Threat Scenarios represents the capability for analysts to create scenarios representing possible threats that have potential to occur given a partial set of facts, events, links, and models.” Yeah, I’ll get right on that module. The project life cycle is defined on page 16 as “TBA - Developing - Prototyping - Experimenting - Transitioning.” This is no life cycle I’ve ever seen, in any OOSE-related materials. What ever happened to requirements gathering and designing? On the other hand, they are very precise about the analysts’ Dell Power Edge 620 workstations on page 95. The document reads like it was written by a vendor whose focus is on billing hours, not building software. It sounds good to risk managers but is completely useless to a developer; full of buzzwords and vague diagrams and little else. The tech industry’s opinion of the TIA system is low; it seems we are protected from Big Brother by greed and incompetence, rather than honor or intellectual vigor.)
A New York Times article in November 2002 raised concerns about privacy in the TIA-watched world. 2002 and 2003 saw a firestorm of reports, articles, and concerns about the TIA system. Senators Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden both introduced bills to stop data mining in general and TIA in specific. DARPA sent a report about the TIA system to Congress in May 2003. On September 24, 2003, Congress officially defunded the TIA project, with the exception of some specific components that were moved under other foreign intelligence projects.
Privacy issues were also raised by the Government Accountability Office, which responded after the project was canceled. Wesley Clark resigned from Acxiom’s board On October 9, 2003, citing the pressures of his presidential campaign.
To bring things full circle, it is reported that the equipment and technology used by the NSA for the warrantless wiretapping in Room 641-A and beyond had its origin in the TIA program. Is it possible that the fight over telecom immunity from prosecution is actually a red herring to distract us all from recognizing that the TIA program, a miserable failure that sucked millions or even billions of dollars from our budget, wasn’t actually canceled, but moved to a new organization and renamed? The ACLU has filed an amicus brief requesting that AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein’s documentation be made public and studied, to answer this question.
“Whether the specific technologies developed under TIA and acquired by ARDA have actually been used in the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs — rather than only for intelligence gathering overseas — has not been proved. Still, descriptions of the two former TIA programs that became Topsail and Basketball mirror descriptions of ARDA and NSA technologies for analyzing vast streams of telephone and e-mail communications. Furthermore, one project manager active in the TIA program before it was terminated has gone on record to the effect that, while TIA was still funded, its researchers communicated regularly and maintained “good coordination” with their ARDA counterparts.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/…
The Right to Privacy
What ever happened to the right to privacy? Truth is, the words “right to privacy” do not appear in the constitution. But Madison and the gang made sure that specific rights to specific privacies were spelled out in the Amendments: the privacy of beliefs, (1st Amendment), privacy from being forced to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures - which includes protection for the privacy of personal information, referred to as “papers” (4th Amendment), and privacy against self-incrimination (5th Amendment).
Every time you use a credit card, a club card, a library card, visit a web page, take out a loan, make a political contribution, you are leaving a digital breadcrumb trail behind you. It is inescapable. And since we can’t avoid leaving the trail we must regulate those who would follow it. The use of these massive databases of “papers” must be reinterpreted as a violation of our 4th Amendment right. They violate what Justice Brandeis famously termed our “right to be let alone.” Even the honorable intention of protecting the country from bad people who would harm us is no justification for violating that right.
“Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
The Solution
I know this has been a long post. I hope you’ve taken the time to read through the links of the various relationships and abuses of aggregated personal data and seen the danger to our democracy for yourself. Protections for personal information in the United States are random, confused, and limited.
Laws have been enacted only in response to specific problems, and no governmental body has taken a wider view to build a consistent, nation-wide policy to protect citizens and prevent the kinds of dangers presented here. Indeed, there isn’t even a single, national standard of what data is private and what is public. It is way past time for this oversight to be addressed.
Without specific laws to protect YOU and your data, there is no limit to the way YOUR data can be used, bought, sold, and manipulated. Don’t limit your fear, uncertainty, and doubt to FISA and warrantless wiretapping. We need to act now to limit the use of privately and government owned data warehouses while we still have a democracy to do so.
And I haven’t even mentioned data loss, data theft, hacking, honest mistakes, Internet cookies, and spyware.
Want to read some more? These folks are working on the problem:
Electronic Privacy Information Center
ACLU 2003 report on the growing surveillance society
IEEE Computer Society - Security and Privacy
About Terri Shea
Terri Shea had a thriving career in high tech for many years until the dot.com crash coincided with maternity leave at the beginning of 2001. Her computer experience includes system configuration and installation, networking, administration, technical support, web development (technical design, specification, and programming) and development management. She currently works from home in Seattle, WA as a freelance writer for the hand knitting market, and published her first book, Selbuvotter: Biography of a Knitting Tradition, in 2007.
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/02/25/fisa-isnt-the-worst-of-it/
Hi alea,
I don't give a whit about his religious convictions either, it's his political convictions I question, and his judgement.
As a first term senator he doesn't have much of a record for voters to evaluate those aspects of the man. So his admiration for as controversial a figure as Rev. Wright becomes telling, and what it says isn't good IMO.
What would be said if this were a white candidates' pastor?
The Republicans (except for the rabid right wing) will be walking on egg shells to make their addressing of this issue not appear as a racial attack, but it is going to be difficult because the Reverands views are clearly based on race.
I don't think mainstream America, no matter what the political affiliations are, is going to like what they see here.
Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division
Jim Davis
Thursday, Aug. 9, 2007
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/8/194812.shtml
Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers to "white arrogance" and "the United States of White America."
In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22.
Obama has spoken and written of his special relationship with that pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
The connection between the two goes back to Obama's days as a young community organizer in Chicago's South Side when he first met the charismatic Wright. Obama credited Wright with converting him, then a religious skeptic, to Christianity.
"It was ... at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago that I met Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who took me on another journey and introduced me to a man named Jesus Christ. It was the best education I ever had," Obama described his spiritual pilgrimage to a group of church ministers this past June.
Since the 1980s, Obama has not only remained a regular attendee at Wright's services in his inner city mega church, Trinity United Church of Christ, along with its other 8,500 members, he's been a close disciple and personal friend of Wright.
Wright conducted Obama's marriage to his wife Michelle, baptized his two daughters, and blessed Obama's Chicago home. Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.
Because of this close relationship, questions have been raised as to the influence the divisive pastor will have on the consensus-building potential president.
Obama and Wright appear, at first blush, an unlikely pair. Wright is Chicago's version of the Rev. Al Sharpton.
It was no surprise that Sharpton recently announced that with Wright's backing, he was setting up a chapter of his New York-based National Action Network in Chicagoland. The chapter will be headed by Wright's daughter, Jeri Wright.
Minister of Controversy
Obama was not the only national African-American figure to cozy up to Wright. TV host Oprah Winfrey once described herself as a congregant, but in recent years has disassociated herself from the controversial minister.
A visit to Wright's Trinity United is anything but Oprah-style friendly.
As I approached the entrance of the church before a recent Sunday service, a large young man in an expensive suit stepped out to block the doorway.
"What are you doing here?" he asked.
"I came to hear Dr. Wright," I replied.
After an uncomfortable pause, the gentleman stepped aside.
On this particular July Sabbath morning, only a handful of white men — aside from a few members of Obama's Secret Service detail — were present among a congregation of approximately 2,500 people.
The floral arrangements were extravagant. Wright, his associate pastors, choir members, and many of the gentlemen in the congregation were attired in traditional African dashiki robes. African drums accompanied the organist.
Trinity United bears the motto "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."
Wright says its doctrine reflects black liberation theology, which views the Bible in part as a record of the struggles of "people of color" against oppression.
A skilled and fiery orator, Wright's interpretation of the Scriptures has been described as "Afrocentric."
When referring to the Romans, for example, he refers to "European oppression" — not addressing the fact that the Egyptians, who were also a slave society, were people of Africa.
The Trinity United Web site tells of a "commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic, pledge to make all the fruits of developing acquired skills available to the black community."
"Some white people hear it as racism in reverse," Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, tells The New York Times. Blacks tend to hear a different message, Hopkins says: "Yes, we are somebody; we're also made in God's image."
Controversy Abounds
Several prior remarks by Obama's pastor have caught the media's attention:
Wright on 9/11: "White America got their wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." On the Sunday after the attacks, Dr. Wright blamed America.
Wright on the disappearance of Natalee Holloway: "Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months."
Wright on Israel: "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."
Wright on America: He has used the term "middleclassness" in a derogatory manner; frequently mentions "white arrogance" and the "oppression" of African-Americans today; and has referred to "this racist United States of America."
Bush's Bulls--t
Wright's strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax.
Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.
The sermon also addressed the Iraq war, a frequent area of Wright's fulminations.
"Young African-American men," Wright thundered, were "dying for nothing." The "illegal war," he shouted, was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money."
In a sermon filled with profanity, Wright also blamed the war on "Bush administration bulls--t."
Those are the types of statements that have led to MSNBC's Tucker Carlson describing Wright as "a full-blown hater."
Wright first came to national attention in 1984, when he visited Castro's Cuba and Col. Muammar Gaddafi's Libya.
Wright's Libyan visit came three years after a pair of Libyan fighter jets fired on American aircraft over international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, and four years before the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland — which resulted in the deaths of 259 passengers and crew. The U.S. implicated Gaddafi and his intelligence services in the bombing.
In recent years, Wright has focused his diatribe on America's war on terror and the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
For a February 2003 service, Wright placed a "War on Iraq IQ Test" on the Pastor's Page of the church Web site. The test consisted of a series of questions and answers that clearly portrayed America as the aggressor, and the war as unjustified and illegal. Marginally relevant issues regarding Israel received attention.
The test also portrayed the Iraqi people as victims of trade sanctions, but Saddam Hussein's propensity for using "oil for food" proceeds to build palaces rather than buy medicine was never mentioned.
At the end of the test, the pastor wrote, "Members of Trinity are asked to think about these things and be prayerful as we sift through the ‘hype' being poured on by the George Bush-controlled media." Obama's campaign staff did not respond to a NewsMax request for the senator's response to Wright's statements.
In April, however, Obama spoke to The New York Times about Wright, and appeared to be trying to distance himself from his spiritual mentor. He said, "We don't agree on everything. I've never had a thorough conversation with him about all aspects of politics."
More specifically, Obama told the Times, "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," adding "It sounds like [Wright] was trying to be provocative."
Obama attributed Wright's controversial views to Wright being "a child of the '60s" who Obama said "expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism, and the struggles the African-American community has gone through."
"It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright," writes Jodi Kantor of The New York Times. On the day Sen. Obama announced his presidential quest in February of this year, Wright was set to give the invocation at the Springfield, Ill. rally. At the last moment, Obama's campaign yanked the invite to Wright.
Wright's camp was apparently upset by the slight, and Obama's campaign quickly issued a statement "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church."
Since that spat, there is little evidence, indeed, that Sen. Obama has sought to distance himself from the angry Church leader. In June, when Obama appeared before a conference of ministers from his religious denomination, Wright appeared in a videotaped introduction.
One of Obama's campaign themes has been his claim that conservative evangelicals have "hijacked" Christianity, ignoring issues like poverty, AIDS, and racism.
This past June, in an effort to build a new consensus between his new politics and faith, Obama's campaign launched a new Web page, www.faith.barackobama.com.
On the day the page appeared on his campaign site, it offered testimonials from Wright and two other ministers supporting Obama. The inclusion of Wright drew a sharp rebuke from the Catholic League. Noting that Obama had rescinded Wright's invitation to speak at his announcement ceremony, Catholic League President Bill Donohue declared that Obama "knew that his spiritual adviser was so divisive that he would cloud the ceremonies."
He noted that Wright "has a record of giving racially inflammatory sermons and has even said that Zionism has an element of ‘white racism.' He also blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy."
Donohue acknowledged that Obama may have different views than Wright and the other ministers on his Web site, but "he is responsible for giving them the opportunity to prominently display their testimonials on his religious outreach Web site."
Political pundits have suggested that Obama's problems with Wright are not ones based on faith, but pure politics. The upstart presidential candidate needs to pull most of the black vote to have any chance of snagging the Democratic nomination. Obama's ties to Wright and the activist African American church helps in that effort.
But the same experts same those same ties may come to haunt him if he were to win the nomination and face a Republican in the general election.
The worry is not lost on Wright.
"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Wright told The New York Times with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said 'yeah, that might have to happen.'"
More than the
last eight???
alea,
Have you memorized the dictionary?
Augean. Perfect word.
I agree Obama is a great orator. What I can make of his policies concern me, the fawning media coverage irritates me, and the cultlike support he has drawn frightens me.
McCain fightens me also.
I expect it will be a trying four years.
Hi x-point,
I'm not so concerned by his religious convictions, as I think he is fairly clear in his understanding of the secular nature of government.
And I think it speaks volumes about the Republican party and its values when it seeks to poison Obama's candidacy, rather than to address the issues he raises head on.
I've no doubt at all that Obama is challengeable. I have plenty of disagreements of my own on policy issues. I dislike the current US health insurance model but I'm not sure his ideas are the best alternative available. I'm wary of a model which tries to manage US corporate hiring policies in the domestic market using tax levers. These kinds of things.
My enthusiasm springs from two main sources:
1. I think we're in need of a spokesman for Western values right now. And as a speaker, this guy is the business. Obama makes Osama look primitive. Which is how I want him to look.
2. I think the Augean Stable that is Washington needs a good rinse, and Obama looks like he might be the one with the detergent.
So regardless of any differences I have on policy, I think on some of the really critical things, he'd make a great President.
Hi alea,
I think there is a lot of room to question Obama's core beliefs that go beyond the red herring of whether or not he is a closet muslim. His choice of his church is definitely going to end up on the front pages if and when he clinches the Democratic nomination.
The Republicans aren't going to be so shy about bringing up hot button racial issues as the Dems have been so far.
------------------------
The Obamanable churchman
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/437121/the-obamanable-churchman.thtml
Regards,
x-point
Hi aleajactaest,
Please do not think I am trying to support or degrade anyone I am interested in substance, this post is from, UTUBE and Chris Matthews, questioning an Obama supporter:
Hi BF (edit),
No tricks. They were easier questions to answer than you seem to have made them.
1. Obama is a Christian. He is not a Moslem. You don't need to research the matter. It is incontrovertible fact.
2. The people who suggest he is a Moslem are dishonest and I hereby consign them to alea's third circle of hell. It also amazes me there are people who believe them. So for them, a short spell in limbo.
3. There is no meaning whatsoever in the serial killer's preference, any more than there is in Mr Farrakhan's. Everyone ends up with someone supporting them many of whose views they don't actually agree with.
HI aleajactaest,About you questions.............
You wrote: "BF, Three questions:
Do you think Obama is a closet Moslem?
What does it say about the people trying to propound that theory if it is knowably false?
If a serial killer endorses McCain, what does that mean about McCain?"
"Do you think Obama is a closet Moslem?"
I am not the one to make that determination, as to whether Obama is a closet Muslim or not.
From what I have read the muslims have been intent on taking over the world throught their entire history and to that end have used every thing in their power to accomplish that.
"What does it say about the people trying to propound that theory if it is knowably false?"
I want to know as much as possible about who is going to be the next president of the United States before voting for them and the only way for me to find out is to do research, That requires me to read every thing I can find in order to make the decision as to who to vote for,
This is an article I recently read from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html
My problem with this kind of articles is that we all know that person who is being recoginized is probably one of the foremost racist in the U.S.
As to your final question:
"If a serial killer endorses McCain, what does that mean about McCain?""
I have no idea why you would ask me that question because I have no way of knowing. Is that a trick question? I have an idea of what it would mean to HIllary she appears to me to support those who suppot her.
See Clinton Pardons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton
Her brother was one of the reciepents as was Mark Rich, an international arms dealer to terriorist. By all standards he would have had to be classified as an alledged accomplice to mass murder.
Hope this gives you a little insight to your questions.
bf
"It appears that Microsoft is aware of this problem" SL
Actually, SL might have made this statement with even more confidence. Peter Biddle, one of the MS trust architecture developers explicitly states they were aware of the issue in the blog responses to this announcement on Freedom to Tinker. Intel told them about freon-based attacks in 2000: that's 8 years ago!
# Peter N Biddle Says:
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Not news to anyone who workd on BitLocker.
http://peternbiddle.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/attack-isnt-news-and-there-are-mitigations/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1257
BF, Three questions:
Do you think Obama is a closet Moslem?
What does it say about the people trying to propound that theory if it is knowably false?
If a serial killer endorses McCain, what does that mean about McCain?
endorsements and denials come in all forms:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23333598/
From VH(IHUB),
On the Mark: Get users saluting together
By Mark Hall
February 25, 2008 (Computerworld)
http://computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=security&articleId=313269&taxonomyId=17&intsrc=kc_feat
Rely on Hardware
More than 150 million PCs and laptops are equipped with the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) microprocessor, estimates Steven Sprague, CEO of Wave Systems Corp. in Lee, Mass. And Intel Corp. will soon include TPM as part of its chip sets. So, Sprague states, "there's no excuse anymore" for organizations to overlook this technology for storing data encryption keys and providing authentication services. Corporate IT departments need to be educated about the benefits of using the TPM chip to secure computers, he says. First, Sprague points out, "you can't hack hardware." If a hacker doesn't type the user's PIN or passcode, he can't access the machine. IT's reliance on software to secure data and network access baffles Sprague. "Software for security has pretty much failed us," he says. For IT, the near-term security advantages of TPM are significant. Without making any new investments, Sprague claims, IT departments can "write 10 lines of code" to enable networks to accept authentication certificates from TPM machines -- no more maintaining occasionally flaky VPN clients and infrastructure.
Broken Nation
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/283
Broken Nation
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Sat Feb 23rd 2008, 10:02 PM
John Dean, formal legal counsel to President Richard Nixon, holds the proud distinction of being THE key witness in the investigation that forced the only presidential resignation in U.S. history. It was his whistle blowing testimony in June 1973 before the Senate Watergate Committee that provided the direct evidence of Richard Nixon’s knowledge of the Watergate break-in and made possible the impeachment hearings that led to Nixon’s resignation. If not for his testimony it is highly doubtful that Nixon would have been forced from office.
The Nixon impeachment effort could have and should have – but did not – set a crucially important precedent for our nation. A President who greatly abused the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation was brought to account for his crimes. Less than three months after Nixon’s resignation the Democratic Party that led the impeachment efforts picked up 48 seats in the House of Representatives and 5 seats in the Senate. Two years later they won back the Presidency against the man who pardoned Nixon for his crimes.
The Senate Watergate Committee hearings were one of the most exciting political events I’ve ever witnessed, and John Dean was one of the most impressive witnesses I’ve ever seen. Day after day he provided the critical testimony that brought down a president, and he never flinched under intense cross-examination by Nixon’s attorneys. I was convinced that he was telling the truth, despite all the efforts to smear his name, and he was completely vindicated when it was discovered that the conversations with the president that he had testified to had been taped, and those tapes bore out his story word for word.
Thirty-five years later Dean describes himself as someone with “four decades of experience in national politics, much of it as a card-carrying Republican”. But as he watched the Republican Party destroying our government Dean became concerned to the point that he recently wrote a book titled “Broken Government – How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches”. His disenchantment with his former party can be summed up with the following paragraph:
Having watched the GOP’s evolution as it embraced the radicalism of authoritarian conservatism, slowly ceding control to its most strident faction, the authoritarian conservatives, I can no longer recognize the party. These new conservative leaders have not only sought to turn back the clock, but to return to a time before the Enlightenment when there were no clocks… Indeed, they have rejected their own reasoned philosophy by ignoring conservatism’s teachings… about the dangers of concentration of power…
“Broken Government” is a hard hitting book that provides a great amount of detail as to how the Republican Party is destroying our government and our country. We should all hope that between now and Election Day 2008 this book is widely read and the information it describes widely disseminated. In this post I’ll summarize some of what Dean has to say about how the Republican Party is destroying our three branches of government:
Legislative abuse
Dean tells of the Republican cabal in Congress that sought to freeze Democrats completely out of the legislative process so that Republican legislators could govern alone and better serve the interests of their corporate donors. They did this largely by routinely ignoring House rules that were inconvenient for them, allowing a bare majority of Republicans in the House to control the legislative process. Rolling Stone editor Matt Taibi explains in “The Worst Congress Ever”:
When Gingrich and colleagues took charge, they made it “a one-party town – and congressional business was conducted accordingly, as though the half of the country that the Democrats represent simply did not exist.
Perhaps worst of all is that our Republican Congress became simply an enabler of presidential abuse of power, completely disavowing its oversight responsibilities:
The Republican-controlled Congress has created a new standard for the use of oversight powers. That standard seems to be that when a Democratic president is in power, there are no matters too stupid or meaningless to be investigated fully – but when George Bush is president, no evidence of corruption or incompetence is shocking enough to warrant Congressional attention. One gets the sense that Bush would have to drink the blood of Christian babies to inspire hearings in the Republican Congress – and only then if he did it during a nationally televised State of the Union address…
While Republicans claim to be the party of “moral values”, their ideological mission of shrinking government so that they can cut taxes on the rich and deregulate powerful corporations at the expense of the American people, belies that claim. Their ideological mission therefore requires them to cut support for housing, education, health care, and community development and raise taxes on the poor so that they can afford the things that they really care about – like war and obscenely high profits for their corporate cronies. The explosion of top level Republican scandals in 2006, resulting in the convictions of men such as Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, and Duke Cunningham, drive home the point that so many Republicans participate in government largely for the purpose of lining their own pockets. Dean sums up the role of our Republican Congresses over the past couple of decades:
Conservative antigovernment philosophy works best when conservatives are in the minority, for they then have no responsibility to accomplish anything. In that position they are very good at obstructionism and using their minority status to make the Democrats look bad. This is, in fact, how they won control of Congress in 1994… Republicans achieved that victory by doing their best over the course of a number of years to destroy the place and then put the blame for it on the Democrats… Democrats… who fail to bring this to the attention of voters are not only missing an opportunity but are allowing Republicans to engage in conduct that should never be considered acceptable.
Abuse of Presidential power and the need for impeachment
The abuses of presidential power and other impeachable offenses committed by George Bush and Dick Cheney are so numerous that they couldn’t possibly be dealt with thoroughly in a single book. I’ve described some of these offenses in many posts, including one titled “How Much Evidence Does Congress Need Before they Begin to Remove the Cancer on our Nation?”. In this post I’ll just relate what John Dean has to say on this issue. He especially dwells on George Bush’s abuse of “signing statements”, which he uses as an excuse to avoid complying with laws enacted by Congress, as that represents such an obvious and egregious abuse of the Constitutional function of the President, whose job it is to enforce the laws of our nation:
If, in fact, Bush has refused to enforce the 1,140 provisions in about 150 federal bills he should be impeached immediately – notwithstanding Speaker Pelosi’s lack of interest – because it would be an extraordinary breach of his oath. Given Bush’s characteristically truculent attitude, it is difficult to believe that he is issuing these signing statements as a symbolic gesture. By refusing to employ his veto power, yet telling Congress that he will not enforce laws he is gaming the system in a fashion never intended by the framers of our Constitution. His actions are an insult to the lawmaking process, for which he claims he does not have to follow the Constitutional rules…
From the beginning or our nation’s history… separation of powers has been the uniquely distinguishing feature of our democratic republic. Presidential war powers that need no Congressional approval, a presidency that acts on radical legal advice and embraces a concocted theory of presidential powers far greater than Americans rejected first with King George III, and more recently with Richard Nixon’s imperial presidency, are no small threat to our government and its underlying principles.
In the last few pages of his book, Dean sums up the problem, explaining how our government currently works very differently than it used to:
Evidence that the system has changed is also apparent when a president can deliberately and openly violate the law – as, for example, simply brushing aside statutory provision against torture and electronic surveillance – without any serious consequences… Alberto Gonzalez faced no consequences when he politicized the Justice Department as never before, allowing his aides to violate the prohibition against hiring career civil servants based on their party affiliation, and then give false public statements and testimony on the matter… The fact that Bush’s Justice Department has become yet another political instrument should give Americans pause. This body was created by Congress to represent the interests of the people of the United States, not the Republican Party, but since the system no longer takes account of when officials act outside the law (not to mention the Constitution), Republicans do so and get away with it.
Turning our federal judiciary into an extension of Republican presidents
Dean explains how, since Richard Nixon, consecutive Republican presidents with the exception of Gerald Ford have engaged in a concerted attempt to remake the federal judiciary into a radical right wing extension and enabler of Republican presidents. That attempt has been largely successful, and they are now one U.S. Supreme Court vote short of radically changing Constitutional law in our country. In Dean’s words:
Corrupting the independence and impartiality of the federal judiciary has been a priority of Republican presidents, who have devoted four decades to selecting primarily judges and justices with a radical conservative political philosophy. As a result these Republican-appointed jurists, who now constitute the prevailing majority, are no more objective and open-minded on countless issues that regularly come before the federal courts than the Republican National Committee.
In a recent post, I discuss the changes that John Dean and others believe will occur if one more radical right wing justice is appointed to the USSC. These include:
The overturning of Roe v. Wade
The total extinction of affirmative action
The enabling of our states to overturn (page 68) our entire Bill of Rights without federal interference
Radical curtailing of civil rights for women, homosexuals, and minority racial groups
The declaring of environmental protection laws to be unconstitutional
The widespread disappearance of habeas corpus
The virtual creation of Christianity as a national religion
The Dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Dean describes the precarious state that we are in with regard to our federal judiciary:
Republicans are not satisfied with a conservative federal judiciary; they want a fundamentalist one, and they are frighteningly close to achieving that goal…
Today the GOP demand for ideological purity for federal judges weakens the third branch as a constitutional co-equal, and weakens its institutional judgment…. Nothing should be more troubling to Americans who vote in the next several presidential elections than the looming prospect of a solid block of judicial fundamentalists controlling the federal judiciary. Obviously, there is only one way to prevent this: Not to vote for another GOP president until the federal judiciary is back in balance… The Republican candidates are already parroting the familiar mantra that, if they are elected president, they will select judges and justices who “don’t legislate from the bench”. This, of course, is nonsense. With the exception of Ron Paul… every single Republican candidate can be counted on by the conservative base to continue doing exactly what Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have done, and that is to put as many judicial fundamentalists on the federal bench as they can push through the Senate.
Broken nation
One respect in which I differ somewhat from Dean’s opinions is that he seems very optimistic that a succession of Democratic presidents and Congresses will repair the damage. To that end he discusses in detail how much Congress has improved already under Democratic leadership. I’m not so sure. In spite of all the improvements in the functioning of Congress since January 2007 that Dean mentions, its failure to halt the Iraq War and to hold the Bush administration accountable for its numerous crimes by impeaching Bush and Cheney is terribly worrisome to me. An imperialist nation with leaders who are not required to operate under the rule of law is not my idea of a functioning democracy. Future Democratic Presidents and Congresses will need a lot of courage if they are to repair the damage. They will also need to resist the temptation of bowing to corporate interests at the expense of the American people. Corporations have become so powerful in our country today that they pose a serious obstacle to meaningful reform. Reversing that situation will be very difficult indeed.
As our government has become broken, so has our nation. The “broken government” that John Dean speaks of has had tragic consequences, one of the most important being the expanding wealth gap in our country. That gap is not only tragic in and of itself, but it also provides substantial political power to a small elite group of super wealthy people, who use that political power to further increase their wealth and expand their power. James Petras, in his book “Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire”, discusses what has become of the US economy:
The inequalities in pay between the US capitalist ruling class and workers increased fourfold between 1990 and 2004…. By 2004… the ratio was approximately 430 times. It is abundantly clear that the key problem of capitalism is the increasing inequalities resulting from heightened exploitation (of workers and consumers)…
Luxury goods industries are booming as profits of the ruling classes… are expanding… In contrast, the numbers of workers covered by company-financed health plans and pensions declined… Rising inequality is providing the great motor force for capitalist accumulation – a clear consequence of rising profits based on greater exploitation.
John Dean ends his book with an anonymous quote from a friend of his from the Nixon administration – anonymous because he is worried about retribution against his family:
Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience… and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they’re dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving… The government is truly broken … and another four years under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable.
Freedom is obviously not the same thing as anarchy. But in some people's definitions, it is almost impossible to tell them apart! There are either no rules. Or totalitarianism.
"Hey, isn't there something in the middle there between those poles?" - As Socrates said to the Hyperboreans ...
I'm afraid Howard has finally revealed his reason. Everything else now drops into place.
Thanks, Alea
I knew that the statement about Trusted Computing and TPMs being compromised was a bit fishy, from a publishing standpoint. Researchers are usually a bit more specific and careful about their conclusions, when they are publishing for purposes of review by the established scientific community.
I suppose that there will be a trade off when the code does get locked down. I would think that a significant number of today's software engineers got their start by tinkering. (or hacking)
There may evolve an open source portion of the computer world-it already exists- in which the tinkerers will have to operate from now on. The roots of it are already there.
alea: Exactly right...
Neglecting to provide/install the necessary safeguard to protect privacy is catastrophic.
Years ago one needed a lock on the house door; That was quite simple.
Today technology is totally intransparent to all but a very few. Even in a country that prides itself on and fiercly wants to protect their privacy and freedom - like the US and many others - insecure (internet) tools undermine the very intention and uphold of these principals.
How can you be sure today, that some Government agency has not planted some application on your PC, an application that records everything you do like the Google "history feature" does with your search past search patterns?
Don't forget, if it can be done it will be done!
ootommy. Nicely put.
The scary state. As I wrote long ago, it starts with them tracking terrorists this way. It ends with parking tickets and pressure on witnesses based on private communications.
It seems to me that the intrusion of the state in the realm of conversation on a massive scale is something we should all be concerned about.
goin (edit), this study uses the scientific process. But the scientists in this case are politicians to a man.
I've known about Ed Felten for ages. He's anti-trust (and anti-DRM) because it interferes with his interest in tinkering to create better solutions. He thinks protecting software and information prevents entrepreneurship in the computing space.
Schoen is anti-trust because he believes in an architecture without any constraints. He thinks the internet is a vehicle to promote freedom and end copyright, things like that.
So this is science informed by politics. And their views aren't silly. It's just that they are lopsided in favour of their own principles, and they fail to admit there are other ones in play which are as important. If MS and Hollywood are the enemy, let's rid ourselves of the structures which maintain their dominance.
As we know, there's also a reasonable interest in protecting valuable information. Whether the information be applications, content, money, personal information or whatever.
Here's a reasson for integrity measurements...
Here's a reason for integrity measurements upon boot up and comparing it to a known and secure hash stored in the TPM...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/leaked-document.html
Leaked Documents Show German Police Attempting to Hack Skype
By Kim Zetter January 29, 2008
Documents released by WikiLeaks last week appear to support earlier reports that Germany's federal police plan to use Trojan horse malware to conduct surreptitious searches of targeted computers, including Skype communication and encrypted SSL traffic.
According to one of the documents, which are unverified and were first published by the German political party PiratenPartei (Pirate Party), the Bavarian police appear to have commissioned a German security company to create a Trojan horse for capturing Skype communications and SSL traffic from surveilled computers that would be directly installed on targeted systems or delivered to unsuspecting suspects via an e-mail with a rogue attachment (much as the FBI delivered a Trojan horse to a Washington high school student last year).
One of the two documents appears to be a letter from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice to prosecutors. It discloses that a company named DigiTask was contracted to provide the Trojan horse, or Skype Capture Unit. The document discusses who is responsible - the Bavarian police or prosecutors -- for the cost of surveilling VoIP traffic used in criminal proceedings.
According to this document and the second one dated September 4 of last year -- which appears to be a letter from DigiTask to government authorities outlining how the program would work and its costs -- the police would be required to rent the software at a cost of EURO 3,500 a month, for a minimum of three months. In addition to the rental fee, the letter describes a one-time installation and de-installation fee of EURO 2,500 (the software de-installs itself after a set timeframe but can also be de-installed manually at any time), plus the cost of renting two proxy servers used to route the collected data to police. The document also mentions an additional EURO 2,500 required to rent SSL-decoding.
Of course Skype traffic is encrypted so just collecting the communication as it's in transit isn't enough. Authorities would need a key to decrypt it. German authorities spoke publicly last year about being thwarted by Skype's encryption. The two leaked documents, which have been somewhat poorly translated into English, address the encryption issue:
Encryption of communication via Skype poses a problem for surveillance of telecommunications. All traffic generated by Skype can be captured when surveilling a Dialin- or DSL-link, but it cannot be decrypted. The encryption of Skype works via AES wih a 256-Bit key. The symmetric AES keys are negotiated via RSA keys (1536 to 2048 Bit). The public keys of the users are confirmed by the Skype-Login-Server when logging in. To surveil Skype-communication it thus becomes necessary to realize other approaches than standard telecommunications surveillance.
The concept of DigiTask intends to install a so called Skype-Capture-Unit on the PC of the surveilled person. This Capture-Unit allows recording of the Skype communication, such as Voice and Chat, as well as diverting the data to an anonymous Recoridng-Proxy. The Recording-Proxy (not part of this offer) forwards the data to the final Recording-Server. The data can then be accessed via mobile Evaluation Stations.
The mobile Evaluation Units can, making use of a streaming-capable multimedia player, playback the recorded Skype communication, such as Voice and Chat, also live. To minimize bandwidth usage special codecs for strong compressions are used. The transmission of data to the recording unit is encrypted using the AES algorithm.
Germany's Supreme Court ruled last year that evidence gained from surreptitious searches of a suspect's computers were inadmissible in the absence of surveillance laws regulating police hacking activity. Legislators began drafting such a bill late last year, but as the leaked documents show, police didn't wait for legislators to make their move before they began talking with DigiTask about creating made-to-order Skype malware.
Around the same time that the police were negotiating with DigiTask, Germany passed another hacking bill that now makes it illegal for anyone (other than police presumably) to create, spread or purchase tools that are designed for hacking.
The DigiTask letter leaked online and dated after the new hacking law was passed includes a disclaimer saying that DigiTask will not be held responsible for usage of the software or any damages caused by it -- such as could happen if the rogue software wreaked havoc on a target's machine or if a lucky hacker stumbled across it on a target's machine and commandeered it for his own surveillance purposes. Noticeably, the letter doesn't appear to mention any guarantee by DigiTask that its secret software can bypass standard firewall and anti-virus protection.
Seems we have all known
that Wave has a solution. Maybe now the world knows the problem.
More from Steven Sprague...
It is amazing to me how little is understood about how hardware security
works.
Does anyone understand the concepts of Intel *T technologies (this is
ultimately how we should get pretty good trusted execution with
scrambled DRAM) This will be required if the main processor is going to
be involved in trusted transactions of any kind. FDE is just a simple
one.
Customers need to bulk encryption in the drive hardware it is a superior
solution to any software and always will be. A single chip solution for
Encryption Key management and access control is key. This is not really
a debate just ask the cell phone industry who migrated to hardware
security in the early 90's to global success and the Set top box
industry who went to hardware in the late 80's seems like there success
speaks for itself.
Strong integrity on the pre-boot environment is critical to detect
compromise. Seagate does this really well especially on a managed drive
and there should still be work done on integrating the Boot integrity
capabilities of the TPM and TPM binding of the drive to the platform for
some implementations. Most of the preboot code for software solutions is
accessible on the drive and can therefore be modified. The Seagate
pre-boot image is read only except by admin who has to be verified by
the drive controller independent of the windows OS
Hiding keys in software only works if there is no reason to break the
software. Either because it is cool and everyone write an article or for
monetary gain. FDE software just became sufficiently mainstream to get
wacked.
Steven Sprague
CEO
Wave Systems Corp.
"Patching" is a leadership and management style, also. I have seen numerous leaders who eschew the more expensive (all at once) solutions that would strike at the root of the problem(s), and eliminate for good any vulnerabilities. They opt, instead, for patches/band-aids, that fix the immediate problem without striking at the root cause.
This can happen in any portion of business activities. I have watched my own workplace be hacked numerous times, but the only response is to try to track down the hacker, and not to improve security.
I say this because of the comments from the Princeton researchers, who pointed not to software encryption, but to the TCG solutions as a whole. They said "Trusted Computing" was vulnerable, not just software encryption. This misinformation may be enough to cause hesitation and further "patching" approaches among senior IT professionals. It also reinforces a dogmatic belief of theirs that nothing is unhackable.
I wonder if the Princeton researchers are among those who hate the DRM movement and identify Trusted Computing as a possible facilitating system for DRM. Perhaps that is why they chose to speak as they did. Politically, that might be a point for Wave to make if they are questioned about the study while on sales calls with customers.
I am glad to see Steven on the offensive immediately. That's exactly what is needed right now. I think that this may indeed be a penultimate moment for Wave. It is gratifying to see SKS quoted immediately- it seems that the reporters knew that Wave was the center of expertise for hardware based Trusted Computing. Perhaps Seagate and Wave will produce a demonstration of sorts of the security of TPMs against this type of attack. Or, invite the Princeton researchers to try to hack the Seagate/Wave solution. That would put us at the the forefront of this issue, and provide many multiples of return on our investment in a bit of advertising and demonstrating right now. The free publicity would be tremendous.
So, go get 'em, Steven (and Seagate)
Weets, good counterpoint. My goodness it is slow. Here we are in 2008! No Western Digital drive. No HP with hardware FDE. Only really beginning with Seagate. Only Dell really showing enthusiasm in the PC space. US government still doing almost nothing. The sluggishness is astonishing.
Yet the fact that Seagate, Dell, Intel, Juniper and MS are pursuing a trust agenda tells you the architecture makes sense to the most knowledgable people in the industry.
Even I know.
That means the rest of the world can't be far behind.;)
Guys,
And I know that you both know, however, it's the rest of the world thay really needs to get hip!! Lets hope this news helps...Carl.
alea: I know you know...
My post was of general nature and in no way, shape or form directed towards you.
I know you know, awk. And I know you know I know that you know.
The point is that some people who say that they know, evidently know very little. No?
In a knowledge architecture, the security of all those nodes has meaning.
alea: You can follow my posts, going back years, and you will see that I have always stated that there is no such thing as graduated security. There are only two things that matter when it comes to security:
SECURE OR NOT SECURE
The mumblings about continuous patching of an inherently and fundamentally flawed platform architecture are simply futile and, quite honestly, have become utterly boring
awk (edit), Note that Steven points to the ease with which the attack can be achieved.
Basically, if you want to achieve a viable global trust system, you have to not be able to make that statement. If all the equipment elements of a system - that's to say, jointly and severally - fail to meet the MINIMAL threshold, then the information in that system won't be trusted.
Pretty good security isn't much use to a global architecture for the use, storage and exchange of valuable information.
And this is why Wave's pulling together of multiple components and types of equipment was so percipient and valuable. Not much use having security in a TPM if you expose your secrets in the memory.
Comment by Steven Sprague, CEO Wave Systems Corp
Hardware Security the key to keeping your data safe - 9 hours ago
http://news.google.com/news?btcid=155a69a0b5d4cf82
The fundamental problem with software security is that it is executed on the main processor so any secrets that are part of the "security" get exposed as part of the main memory of the system. Most of the articles on this memory vulnerability fail to mention that this problem can be just as acute for Authentication Keys used by the VPN or Wireless infrastructure. The bad news is that you can't easily fix this with software, The good news is that solutions are available that leverage hardware security to protect the secrets. Let me try to break the problem down and explain the tools and approaches which are available to address the memory attack problem.
The memory attack that was described by Declan McCullagh works because the secret keys used to encrypt the data need to be used by the processor and as a result must be available in the main processor memory. This is a systemic problem of an open programmable PC. The memory attacks described to find encryption keys was not all that surprising as an approach, however, the ease with which the attack could be successfully achieved was clearly unforeseen.
To address these two security challenges security hardware can be used to not just store keys securely but also use those keys for the function that needs to be executed. Let's focus on two security related functions first, authentication and second, bulk data encryption.
For VPN keys, a chip can securely create store and use the keys without the operation requiring any processing of the data within the main processor memory. A good example is the TPM (Trusted Platform Module). This is a security chip that can be found on millions of business laptops and desktops. The TPM creates a public/private key pair for securing the VPN and keeps the private key secured so that it is never exposed outside of the chip. The TPM can be asked to use this private key as an identity for authentication of the PC or the user. When used for authentication the TPM can complete the secure portion of the authentication transaction completely inside the TPM chip. This is important because the TPMs are tamper resistant and would require a significant attack effort to extract a secret key from a TPM. This is the same type of protection that is used in millions of cell phone SIM modules, smart cards and other security chips. While the TPM that is used with the Microsoft BitLocker FDE application is used to protect the keys when the PC is turned off, while the system is either running or in standby mode, the encryption keys are still exposed within the main processor of the system. The TPM is not a bulk encryption device, only a key generation and secure key storage device. Therefore, Bitlocker and other software FDE solutions, even if they support TPMs are still going to expose the encryption keys to these kinds of memory attacks.
The Seagate Momentus 5400.2 FDE drive provides an entirely different approach to the encryption solution. The disk drive controller, a powerful and secure processor, generates its own encryption keys and then encrypts/decrypts all data sent to or requested from the disk drive. In addition, the strong authentication of users using passwords is integrated directly into the drive and is performed before any foreign software, including the operating system are ever loaded. The means that all access control and encryption take place within the highly secure hardware of the disk drive. The keys which encrypt the data are not accessible and never leave the drive, so there is no exposure from the kinds of memory attacks described. The additional benefit of integrating encryption directly into the hard drive is that system performance is never affected and main processor cycles are never used to perform the computationally intense tasks of encryption and decryption. Encryption directly in the hard drive is a win-win solution for both security and performance.
Consequently, the data protection answer is clear, enterprises should be ordering all new laptops with the highly secure Seagate Momentus 5400.2 FDE drives. Laptops with these drives are currently sold by Dell, Lenovo, NEC Europe and ASI. These solutions have robust security management software available in order to provide remote management, including full audit logging for the FDE drives in order assist in meeting compliance to the numerous data protection regulations.
Wave Systems' Embassy Trust Suite software provide the software that enable central management of both the TPM and the Seagate FDE drives. These tools make it easy to leverage these hardware security technologies to secure the enterprise.
Actions any IT department can take to reduce vulnerabilities
- Utilize the TPM chip to store any client side certificates for more secure network access and user authentication
- Specify and purchase laptops with Seagate FDE drives in all new laptops.
- Install an integrated centralized management solution for the hardware security features currently in most laptops including the TPM, FDE drives, finger print readers and smart card readers
There is no magical SW. All of the software solutions today have the same vulnerabilities to secrets being held in memory so that the processor can use them. The greater the complexity of the software the more likely there are vulnerabilities. Hardware security is a well known solution. Industry has invested to bring inexpensive robust hardware security to millions of PCs. It is time for Every VPN and every Wifi connection to leverage hardware to secure the enterprise. Conduct an audit of the machines in your enterprise and see how many already have a TPM. Ask your network vendors for documentation on how the TPM can be used (if your network supports MSCAPI it will support a TPM) and begin to explore the use of hardware to secure your enterprise. Seagate's FDE drive is a must for anyone buying a laptop. The reduction in liability for the corporation is more than enough ROI for any IT department. It is an easy to deploy, Very secure, and easy to manage device for full disk encryption. Ask your OEM to supply you one or feel free to call Wave so we can help you evaluate the solution.
The really exciting thing about the freezing experiment this group conducted is not that it has discovered something altogether new, apparently. It is that they have generated a huge amount of publicity for the fact that software security is inadequate.
A story this prominent should lead to questions being asked at the highest level. And panicked legal teams and CTOs buzzing around like blue-arsed flies trying to find solutions to their encryption problems. Software solutions have been exposed in an embarassing way.
Maybe it's time to move to more robust answers. The bush just got another good shake. Maybe Seagate's client companies that have solved the issue will want to begin publicising the fact - if we're lucky!
And what a great opportunity for Steven, whose thesis is vindicated and who has had a majpr opportunity to enter the limelight. TV next?
What a great
example of the need for separation of Church and State.
Excellent find by JKIRK on the Wave board. Steven has articulated Wave's position extremely clearly. The spelling looks correct to me. And heck, he even has PGP sorted (Pretty Good Punctuation).
No doubt at all that Dell should revive its most secure notebook ad campaign. This story will just kill HP in the enterprise market.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27065714
The best Republican speech
Of the last century:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
excerpts:
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad...
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel....
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite....
During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.
Followers
|
29
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
5140
|
Created
|
10/07/03
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |