The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. — Blaise Pascal
Archive for August, 2009
Glenn Beck doesn’t understand the Internet… (if he does, then he’s making a big deal about this simply so he can have something to yap about)
First, watch the following video:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002008/
Just a point of order before I get too far into this; throughout this post, I’ll use the terms “warning banner”, “warning message”, “logon banner”, “network banner” and “privacy statement” interchangeably… they all refer to just about the same thing and serve the same purpose.
Now if you are to take Beck at his word, this is scary shit right? Wrong. First of all, don’t take beck at his word [ever], he’ll give you brain herpes. Here’s the deal, that disclaimer that he’s taking such a big issue with? Yeah, it’s a pretty standard warning message actually. Take the U.S. Army’s website for example (warning, you’ll have to confirm a security certificate exception); one of the “scary issues” that Beck has with the warning on the cars.gov website is that it’s too broad (never mind the fact that it has to be… we’ll get to that in a second). If you read the security warning on the Army’s site, it too is broad and so is their terms of service. Moreover, all this bullshit about “America, do not try this at home.” is just silly fucking nonsense, meant only to scare people who do not know any better. This security message that Beck is all up in arms about is what is known as a “warning banner”. Warning banners are common on just about all corporate and government computers that are accessible from the Internet (…and have been common for a looooong time). Even some private computers, such as someone who runs a web, e-mail, ftp, etc. server from their home for personal use will have warning banners. In addition to those, it’s also common to see similar, broadly worded messages at the bottom of some e-mails (pursuant to the “e-mail” policy of some organizations). Their purpose is to cast a wide legal net so that in the event that someone abuses the system in question, legal action can be taken. The basic purpose of any warning banner should be to make the following point: If you attempt to circumvent the security measures employed by this system, succeed in doing so, and/or abuse this system in any way, legal action will be taken against you. Not to belabor the point, but here’s what the DOJ has to say about warning banners:
Network banners are electronic messages that provide notice of legal rights to users of computer networks. From a legal standpoint, banners have four primary functions. First, banners may be used to generate consent to real-time monitoring under Title III. Second, banners may be used to generate consent to the retrieval of stored files and records pursuant to ECPA. Third, in the case of government networks, banners may eliminate any Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” that government employees or other users might otherwise retain in their use of the government’s network under O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). Fourth, in the case of a non-government network, banners may establish a system administrator’s “common authority” to consent to a law enforcement search pursuant to United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
If my name were Glenn Beck, I’d be throwing a tantrum upon reading eliminate any Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” … and I wouldn’t read the rest before running to the camera with a story about how the Communist-terrorist Obama administration wants to eliminate our Fourth Amendment rights (never mind the fact that the referenced DOJ website was in existence well before Obama took office)… but I digress.
Warning banners, such as the one Beck is holding up as an example of “scary shit that the Obama administration is doing” shouldn’t frighten anyone except for those who plan on doing exactly what the warning message tells them not to do. Warning banners are passive security measures; they need to be broad in order to apply to any/all possible cases of abuse. They don’t actually make the computer/network/website/etc. more secure (with the exception of causing would-be “crackers” to think twice before trying anything). Their real power comes from the fact that they can be used in court to show that the defendant had been warned in advance and knew full and well they were doing something that they shouldn’t have been doing.
In regard to this particular warning banner, I went to the cars.gov website to see what I could find out about it… it turns out, that the only way you’ll ever see the message that Beck is ranting about is if you are a car dealer participating in the CARS program. Given the potential for fraud on behalf of unscrupulous car dealers, I’d say that the strong wording of the warning banner/privacy message (whichever you choose to call it) is entirely appropriate. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens looking for information about the CARS program only consent to have their IP address tracked (which is something that all webservers do by default anyway).
This is just another example of fearmongering on behalf of a fanatic who cannot reconcile his world-view with reality.
### Update! Here’s some more information about this from Daily Kos, enjoy.
How Ironic
Along the same paradoxical lines as “saddlebacking”, comes this bit of news from Oklahoma:
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins delivered a lecture on the illusion of intentional purpose in nature on March 6 at McCasland Field House. Earlier that week, Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, authored two resolutions apropos of Dawkins’ lecture.
These resolutions opposed Dawkins’ invitation to speak because of his “intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking,” and condemned the University of Oklahoma for engaging in “one-sided indoctrination” in service of the “unproven and unpopular” theory of evolution.
Intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking? How is this not the pot calling the kettle black? And since when is evolution “unproven and unpopular”? Maybe he’s just limiting the scope of this statement to Oklahoma… who knows. Last I checked, evolution was a scientific fact that only seems to be unpopular with people who are either uneducated or those whose minds are closed to logic and reason. On second thought; there’s an awful lot of people like that… maybe Rep. Thomsen has a point.
What I find to be so ironic about this (aside from what I’ve already said) is that the “religious” “right” is always yammering on about how they’re “protecting” America and our Constitutional values—even free speech (especially free speech). Any time someone files a complaint about, oh, I don’t know, things like a 2.6 ton granite monument to the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building; or other overtly religious symbols/displays on public (and thereby secular) property; they are always sure to decry it as an infringement on their right to free speech. But when the tables are turned, they’re always the first to try to suppress someone else’s right to free speech if it’s speech that they don’t approve of… do they not realize the hypocrisy in this? … It’s a rhetorical question, everyone already knows the answer.
