What is Digg?Sponsored by Toyota
Toyota's remedy for floor mat entrapment view!
youtube.com - Toyota explains what is being done to address the potential floor mat entrapment of accelerator pedals.
39 Comments
- visionviper, on 02/07/2010, -3/+21About ***** time.
Hopefully this will actually get us somewhere... - DavidNiven, on 02/08/2010, -3/+17Should have been done 10 years ago. The fact that the government has to make deals with hackers who get caught to teach them how to secure their systems in exchange for leniency shows how far behind the power curve we are.
- diggydougie, on 02/08/2010, -0/+7from http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88621
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
Nothing to see here. Just move along citizens. - biotch, on 02/08/2010, -0/+7One can be brave and embrace basic and blatantly needed measures to protect one's self.
You can run into battle empty handed and nude and you may be brave to do so, but youd also be a fool.... and dead. - biotch, on 02/08/2010, -1/+8This is something that should have been done years ago. Glad its finally coming to fruition.
Here is an article I read some time ago about a related step taken in the executive branch.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/w ... - diggydougie, on 02/08/2010, -1/+7From his web page:
"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president."
This is way too much power to give to the president. The president can shut down the entire internet whenever he wants to just by saying it's in the interest of national security. Even if the security interest is public dissent against the government. - oboshoe, on 02/08/2010, -1/+7we won't. We'll just pay interest on what it cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt - diggbigwig, on 02/08/2010, -4/+9I wonder how we'll pay for this?!?!?
- oboshoe, on 02/08/2010, -0/+3This sounds great, but its essentially funding the NIST to compete against companies like Cisco, Google and others who are already spending billions in research on cyber security.
I guess it'll serve to put some out of work engineers to work though. - BIOHazard87, on 02/08/2010, -1/+4So, one person who is against it, is an "Obvious idiot" whereas another person who is against, "maybe has valid reasons" ....... makes a lot of sense /s.
- burnfromwithin, on 02/08/2010, -8/+11Won't change anything. It will just be a bunch of wasted money.
The article talks about a 'cybersecurity awareness and education program' but anything like that isn't going to work. Cybersecurity is far too advanced a concept for your average Facebook user and they have no incentive to learn about it anyways. The chance of something bad happening to any particular user who practices poor security is so minimal that it actually isn't worth their effort to defend against it.
Make computers/software secure in the first place. That's the only way we are going to dig ourselves out of this hole. - blorc, on 02/08/2010, -3/+5Anyone who thinks this is anything other than a waste of money and somehow ultimately justification for more government prying into the Internet is seriously deluded.
- alkidance, on 02/08/2010, -1/+3dugg because thumbnail looked like boobs pressing down on Capitol Hill
- oboshoe, on 02/08/2010, -0/+2The vast majority of computing and Internet standards are NOT set by NIST. Oh there are a few, but its like 100 to 1. Maybe 1,000 to 1.
If you have some time, browse through the RFC library. Compare how many are written by NIST vs engineers at these companies or Universities.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
(in fact I can't think of a single RFC written by nist) - WhereAndWhen, on 02/09/2010, -0/+2HAHAHAHAHAHA.....oh wait...you're serious about that. Well...i applaud your optimism.
- FyberOptic, on 02/08/2010, -0/+2Scare tactics. This has all been discussed before, and thinking the president has the ability to "pull the switch" on the entire thing is simply paranoia and a lack of understanding of both the technical and social ramifications of such an act.
ISPs, data centers, and other internet facilities have always had the ability to null-route connections when some form of DDoS attack is taking place. They do it all the time. Such a thing would simply allow the government to act more swiftly to enact such a solution to an attack on government infrastructure. - verb0s, on 02/08/2010, -0/+2Government sure does a great job in protecting individuals online (Sarcasm)
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches. ... - zediker, on 02/08/2010, -0/+1They already follow NIST standards, they don't compete with NIST... competing with NIST is like saying your competing with IEEE or ANSI...
- diggydougie, on 02/08/2010, -0/+1The government only takes. It does not give.
- QuimbyDogg, on 02/08/2010, -1/+2I'd figure a more conservative digger like yourself would be happy to see more dollars going toward defense. Bush spent billions on those wars to protect us that none of you conservatives seemed to care about where the money came from. We were actually in a surplus before that point.
And if you think cybersecurity isn't necessary you are dead wrong. Hackers are going to be one step of the new modern warfare. Everything is tied into networks these days and if you can't imagine all the horrible things that could go wrong if someone was able to access our power grid in places (just one example) I'm not sure what to tell you. - CraigReed, on 02/08/2010, -0/+1The house passes this, the house passes that. The Senate? Nothing for no one!
- verb0s, on 02/08/2010, -1/+2Just read the bill. The bill essentially states the federal government is going to subsidize(through scholarships and grants) for people to enter the IT field (specifically IT security). The bill also states it wants to centralize protocols and "ID" management systems.
The field of Cyber Security is going to be systematically uniformed and destroyed! Welcome to the centralization of Cyber Security. The best type of security is decentralized. Government will always cling to protect its "citizens" in order to gain control over its populace. This is only the beginning of the end for online liberty and freedoms. Yes, the protocols should be changed. Yes, there should be research and development in Cyber Security. But, individuals and businesses have already done a great job of this! The government's role will only lead to pandora's box. And once corporatists cling to the governments interests soon enough we'll have internet protocols created by companies like Symantec =)
Every Malicious individual on the Internet is probably cheering right now - Moralogic, on 02/08/2010, -1/+2I weirdly trust our online community to protect us more than the government. After all, they are the people the government is going to have to communicate with to learn more, and who they will turn to if they have problems for additional help anyways.
- zediker, on 02/08/2010, -0/+1True, I'm just saying NIST isnt really a company but more of a standards body, so there really isnt a copetition, thats all.
- visionviper, on 02/09/2010, -0/+1Like I said, HOPEFULLY this will actually get us somewhere.
- diggydougie, on 02/09/2010, -0/+1We should never, never, ever allow any government access to the switch of communications. Just look to Iran or China for examples.
What seems outrageous today is the norm tomorrow. The abuses today that are considered to be tame, would have caused riots 20 years ago. What they do is plant the seeds. Then much later when some crisis comes along the politicians look to those forgotten laws from decades ago written for entirely different purposes to further their aims (not ours). It's like the slow coiling of a boa constrictor. The snake doesn't actually squeeze it's prey. Rather it allows the prey to exhale and tightens enough to prevent the prey from inhaling until it suffocates to death. Our laws are the same. They let us get accustomed to the laws and then take them to the extremes. By that point it's difficult to argue because the laws have been on the books for years without challenge. What's going on at the airports is coming soon so a public place near you. - dayal911, on 02/08/2010, -2/+2The same liberals who fulminated the Bush administration for running up the debt are now saying it's OK now that their man ran it up more than ever in his first year.
Hypocrisy at its best. - Kwashiorkor, on 02/08/2010, -1/+1That's the real issue!
"Senator, it appears that there is a large volume of pornography on your computer, and its' slowing it down."
"Those hackers have struck again! We have got to do something about cyber-security!!!" - downthefed, on 02/08/2010, -3/+3bs this is a joke go to infowars.com real some real news. Ron Paul 2012!
- inactive, on 02/08/2010, -7/+7Another fear another trillion victory for the Chinese. Whatever happened to Land of the Brave?
- diggydougie, on 02/08/2010, -1/+1This will bring about china style censorship to the US. Wherever you see the word "security" read "control". As in over us.
- vectorlogic, on 02/08/2010, -1/+1It's about time! It is scary to see what is coming out of China.
- ClaireQuilty, on 02/08/2010, -1/+1Are you leaving out The Senate because of the Republican's 41 seat majority?
- scamper22, on 02/08/2010, -6/+5waste of money.
Google, the open source world, Cisco, even MS, a million other companies are all already on this...
There's big money in security and they're all over it. - FyberOptic, on 02/08/2010, -2/+1Ron Paul is an obvious idiot for far more than this single vote. But I can tell you're a fan so there's no point in explaining further.
- solarplexus7, on 02/08/2010, -6/+3ok
- Cuishi14, on 02/08/2010, -4/+0What the government should also research....
1 alternate transportation for cars since 40,000 american die from car realated deaths each year.
2 why the top 5 percent of americans have more money then the bottem 95 percent. if the top 5 spread the wealth wouldnt that mean that the majority of ameicans would be middle class meaning we could raise taxes and keep alot ***** open while fixing our ***** neighborhoods, school, and feed the kids who go to those schools hungry.
3. postive and negative effects of marijuana over constant use and other non inhalent uses. such as fuel, paper, and clothing. Weed is alot different then most plants and should be treated different not jus BANNED. Our government bitches about the drug war but there is a whole stretch of land in the sonran desert that isnt watched at all and is prime for anyone to enter or leve.
4. Ever since the late 60s when we made leaps and bounds to get to space we have pretty much done nothing. sure we have the internet, ipods and tvs but for some reason "I" think that those are just to distract the majority of the population. In 40 years the best thing we could come up with is an iTouch. While we focus on OUR own lives children starve in africa, south america, and even in our own country. WE are being distracted from somthing and are being swayed in the WRONG direction without us even knowing - FyberOptic, on 02/08/2010, -15/+4And what excuse does idiot Ron Paul have for voting against this?
- FyberOptic, on 02/08/2010, -17/+4By the way, for anyone curious. The five republicans against it were:
Ron Paul (TX) - Obvious idiot.
Paul Broun (GA) - Once compared Obama to Hitler, so I think that speaks for itself.
Louie Gohmert (TX) - Was involved with legislation to require birth certificates after the whole Obama thing. Again, speaks for itself.
Jeff Flake (AZ) - Actually fights against earmarks pretty hard so maybe he has valid reasons. I dunno anything else about him.
F. James Sensenbrenner (WI) - The old fart of the bunch, who is big on national security otherwise. Apparently just when he understands what's going on. Same old fart is on the Space and Aeronautics subcommittee, unfortunately.
