I doubt the majority of Americans will be impacted by this change. After all, the people likely to visit a website whose URL is in Arabic or Cyrillic or Chinese probably already speak the language. And in terms of national security, I don’t think it will be an issue since people in the intelligence community who monitor Arabic websites will be able to make sense of the URLs.
Where it could be an issue, though, is for the average user who doesn’t speak a non-Latin language. As Gizmodo and others have already pointed out, they pose a greater phishing threat. But even for legitimate sites, will there be a way to translate the URLs into Latin characters for non-native-speaking users, similar to Google’s “translate this page” feature?
I guess the rule of thumb for such sites is that unless you can speak (or at least read) the language, don’t go there.
(Also interesting to note how many Arab commenters on Mashable say that Arabic domains are unnecessary and will only cause confusion. Therefore it makes me wonder how many of these we’ll actually see other than from official government sites and extremist groups.)
I was working at Microsoft at the time. Usually I’d listen to the radio on the way to work, but for some reason on the morning of September 11, 2001, I didn’t.
I showed up for work a little before 8:00 AM, and the office was still pretty quiet. I walked down the row of cubicles to say hi to my friend Larry, and I found him staring at his monitor. “Did you hear about this?” he asked. Of course I hadn’t. “A plane crashed into the World Trade Center.” Oh my God! How awful!
I got back to my desk and pulled up any news website I could get, trying to find out what happened. Normally, there were TVs at the end of the rows permanently tuned to MSNBC, but none of them had been working for a week or so. And now I couldn’t reach any of the major news sites (msnbc.com, cnn.com, etc.) as they were all flooded with traffic. I was able to get some information on the Dallas Morning News site, though, and kept reloading it over and over to try and get the latest updates. This was a terrible accident!
Then came the news that another plane had hit the other tower, and we understood that it was no accident.
Within the hour, a third plane hit the Pentagon, and it was clear we were under attack. By that time the TVs had been turned back on, and we split our attention between them and any other news we could get online. Everything seemed to be pretty chaotic.
And then the south tower collapsed.
I couldn’t believe it. It was all so surreal. For a few moments I sat there thinking how there would only be a single World Trade Center building now and how strange that would be. I just couldn’t wrap my mind around it.
Then came reports of a fourth plane down, this time in rural Pennsylvania, possibly the result of a hijacking that had been thwarted. But when would it end? How many more planes were still in the air, and what else could happen? And then shortly after that, the north tower of the World Trade Center gave way.
Throughout the rest of the morning, we could only watch helplessly as we tried to grasp what had occurred in such a short amount of time. The phones, which were typically pretty busy at that time of the day, were quiet, but there were a few calls coming in here and there. We handled them the best we could, but our minds were clearly not on our work. At lunch, everyone gathered in the cafeteria, where the company had agreed to buy everyone’s meal. Everyone around me was angry and could only talk about getting revenge on the people who had carried out the attacks. But I was silent, barely able to hold myself together. After I was done eating, I went to my car and broke down in tears, and then I prayed; it was the only thing I could do.
I got home that evening and hugged and kissed my wife. At that time we usually didn’t eat dinner at the table, but we did that night, turning the TV off in order to have a break from the news for a few minutes. And I prayed again, for our nation, for the families of the victims, and for my daughter Megan, who was only 5 months old at the time.
It’s been 8 years since the attacks on September 11th, and I can still feel the gut-wrenching fear, confusion, and overwhelming sadness that I experienced on that day. And that’s a good thing. We should never forget.
Back in April, Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced two bills, 773 and 778, which would’ve essentially given the President the unilateral ability to shut down any services on the Internet — even those from the private sector — in the case of a “cybersecurity emergency”. But the bills didn’t stop there. They would’ve also given the Commerce Department “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”
As Wired points out, S-773 has been revised significantly since then, removing much of the controversial language and replacing it with more sensible (albeit general) guidelines for dealing with with cyber attacks on the U.S.:
(2) [I]n the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network—
(A) [the President] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and
(B) may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network;
(3) shall, in coordination with various critical infrastructure industry sectors, develop detailed cyber emergency response and restoration plans for each critical infrastructure industry sector;
Further, the revised bill seems to negate S-778, which called for the creation of an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. Instead, S-773 calls for a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel, which would be comprised of “representatives of industry, academic, non-profit organizations, interest groups and advocacy organizations, and State and local governments who are qualified to provide advice and information on cybersecurity research, development, demonstrations, education, personnel, technology transfer, commercial application, or societal and civil liberty concerns”.
All in all, it’s a vast improvement over the original bill. It gives the President the ability to quickly respond to critical threats to the nation’s information infrastructure, and in emergencies such as those of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, such a response is absolutely vital. And when you consider how vulnerable we are to a targeted cyber attack, it’s obvious we must be prepared to deal with those crises.
That said, the bill is certainly not ideal. First, it still gives the White House authority over private-sector networks and information systems in the event of an emergency without specifically limiting that authority. In other words, the definition of what constitutes a “cybersecurity emergency” is still at the sole discretion of the White House, opening the door to potential abuse. And as I pointed out in April, President Obama has proven time and again that he is more than willing to seize control of private corporations if given the chance.
Second, the inclusion of “interest groups” on the Advisory Panel should raise an immediate red flag. Think ACORN, the ACLU, RIAA lobbyists, and other groups. How much influence groups like that would have is unclear, but do we really want to find out?
The revision of S-773 has definitely eased some concerns, but there is still more room for improvement.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. …
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity. …
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. …
9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. …
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror. The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:
What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech. In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)
Now, you may be asking, so what? Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world? After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith. It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration. He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons. He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world. But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.
The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead. They still want to destroy Israel. While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.
The point is that now is not the time for apologies. Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. Now is not the time to “change course.” If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it. It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.
Two Senate bills, 773 and 778, introduced by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe would, if passed, give the federal government virtually unrestricted control over the Internet, including private-sector Internet services, applications, and services.
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.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws. …
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, “it makes it more vulnerable to intruders,” Granick says. “You’ve basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down.”
The bill’s scope, she says, is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.”
I’m all in favor of increasing cybersecurity but clearly not at this cost. The Obama administration already has proved it has no qualms about removing executives from private sector companies, despite having absolutely no constitutional authority to do so. If this bill were to pass as-is, what’s to stop the White House from seizing control of AT&T, Verizon, and other ISPs and dictating what information is allowed and not allowed to pass over their networks? As it stands now, nothing.
And you thought the Bush-era NSA wiretapping was bad.
With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. …
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, points out:
The CIA program he is effectively shutting down is the reason why America has not been attacked again after 9/11. He has removed the tool that is singularly responsible for stopping al-Qaeda from flying planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport, and London’s Canary Warf, and blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago, among other plots.
Nice. While we’re busy digging a nice, big hole in the sand to stick our heads back in, Osama bin Laden is laughing his off in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
You know, I seem to recall something Obama said in his inauguration speech:
[F]or those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us….
My wife and I stumbled on to ABC’s new documentary series Homeland Security USA last night, and it turned out to be more interesting than I expected but also pretty frustrating.
The series follows agents from border control, customs, and the TSA as they hunt down illegal immigrants, inspect imported products, and attempt to secure the border against drugs and terrorists. And it’s that “attempt” part that’s so maddening.
The show plays out like an infomercial for the DHS: no illegal aliens evade capture, no drugs or weapons get through the border, every agent gets their man.
But it’s not that simple in real life, is it? For every illegal alien that gets arrested and deported, there are dozens of others who aren’t caught. For every kilo of cocaine found inside a spare tire (bundled in diapers to throw off the dogs!), there’s more that isn’t. For every emotional TSA agent vowing to protect the little children who fly our airlines, there are others who frankly don’t care. For every Swiss belly-dancer trying to enter the country illegally… um… well, OK, that might be a unique case.
Anyway, the point is that while we absolutely need ICE and the TSA and the DHS, it seems like a never-ending cat-and-mouse game. You catch someone trying to cross the border illegally and deport them, but they’ll almost certainly be back again and again until they succeed. How can that not be demoralizing to the agents that have to deal with it day in and day out?
Like most other people, I don’t really have any definitive answers. I don’t know how you can effectively secure the borders by building a huge fence or passing some new legislation. The drugs, the illegal immigration, it’s all fueled by supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for cheap, unskilled, undocumented labor in the U.S., there will be a ready supply. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be someone willing to risk their lives to provide them. As long as there is a demand for inexpensive products from other countries, there will be companies willing to cut corners at any cost in order to put them into consumers’ hands.
If anything, I suppose, the point of the show is to remind viewers that there are thousands of men and women out there fighting these battles daily. Believe me, I’m thankful for the all the ones they win. It’s the ones they don’t that we should be concerned about.
Finally, some good news! The Transportation Security Administration is reporting that we are winning the war… on liquid.
“I think realistically in one year we, the TSA and foreign colleagues, will be a position to relax liquids restrictions,” Hawley told the Middle Seat Thursday. “We are within a year of having the ability to differentiate threat liquids through the screening process.”
Wait. One year? You mean we have to keep stuffing our 3-ounce toilettries into a ziploc bag and having them scrutinized by bitter, minimum wage TSA screeners for a whole other year? What?! C’mon!
Well, at least we’re close to winning the war on deadly footwear and belts. Right?
Error: Unable to access Twitter at URL (http://www.twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/jasonspooner.json?count=5). Verify service status. (HTTP code 401.)
