alter3d at alter3d.ca
Tue Oct 13 17:27:28 UTC 2015
On 10/13/2015 11:30 AM, Bob Evans wrote:
> WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this. Let's pass a law that
> requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address.
> Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital
> crime. While law enforcement puts it in a pile forms and pretends they can
> verify through the process of piling and ignoring it. 10 days later, If
> law enforcement doesn't call - the store can then call the buyer and tell
> them they can pick up their new potential crime committing internet
Background checks are great and all, but really what we need to do is
restrict the ability of criminals to access illegal information, and we
also need to get high-powered crime devices off of our streets.
To that end, we're currently working on drafting new legislation which
we're calling the "Personal Access To Restricted Information Over
Telecommunications Act" (PATRIOT Act) that will give the government the
ability to remove illegal information from the internet, monitor global
internet access so we can detect criminal activity, and also streamline
the process for dealing with offenders. In talking with our
intelligence and police services, we've found that there are several key
areas that can be improved to be able to deal with threats faster and
more efficiently. For example, "due process" is quite slow, requiring
the gathering of something I believe is called "evidence", and we are
currently examining ways to simply make it "process". This will give
our law enforcement the tools that they desperately want.
On the hardware level, we need to get rid of all devices with more than
1 USB port. No one other than a criminal needs more than 1 external
hard drive. This will inconvenience a very small number of people who
also use USB ports for devices such as keyboards, mice and printers, but
we commissioned a study that said the impact should be minor. We
recommend that those affected by this change look at alternatives such
as "PS2". The government computing infrastructure has been using this
standard for several years now with great success.
Limiting USB ports on a device introduces another problem -- the "USB
hub loophole", which we will address with future legislation. We will
need to work with the ATF and Homeland Security to identify the best way
to deal with this issue. We will probably need to bring in CIA and NSA
as well, to monitor the production and sale of these devices both abroad
and domestically. We are also in talks at the UN to introduce a new,
multinational, multilateral civilian oversight committee to monitor and
regulate the international trade of these dangerous items. However, we
are having difficulties getting some member states to accept the
inspection requirements, and talks are ongoing.
Next, we're going to limit the general availability of network
connections to no more than 32kbit/sec in either direction. Faster
network connections will be available, but you will have to register
with the government and pay for a tax stamp. This ensures that
criminals can't misuse high-speed network connections, unless they can
afford to pay $200.
Finally, we are going to introduce a total digital-crime-device ban to
help tackle the problem in high-crime areas. We are going to give
states and municipalities the ability to make "digital-free zones" where
the possession of digital crime devices is prohibited. This will result
in the complete elimination of digital crimes committed in public areas
such as schools and movie theaters, because it will be double-illegal to
commit crimes there.
More information about the NANOG