I did read the article and having worked for gov't agencies twice in my
career a proposal like the one floated by DHS is just the camel's nose.
I should hope the carriers oppose this.
Now a call comes into our ops center "I cant reach my experiment at
Stanford". Ops looks up the outages Oh yeah there's a fiber cut affecting
service we will let you know when it's fixed. They check it's fixed they
call the customer telling them to try it now.
Under the proposed regime "We know its dead do not know why or when it
will be fixed because it' classified information" This makes for
absolutely wonderful customer service and it protects public safety how?.
Scott C. McGrath
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting.
The DHS is doing what it is paid to do: Look for the worst case
scenario, predict the damage.
And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against _aren't
even in effect yet._
** Reply to message from Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu> on
Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
The DHS is doing what it is paid to do: Look for the worst case
scenario, predict the damage.
At some point, somebody with some sanity needs to look at the proposal, and say
"If we think we have to resort to this, then the terrorists have already won".
And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against _aren't
even in effect yet._
Wander over to www.chillingeffects.org or Ed Felton's www.freedom-to-tinker.org
or any number of other sites that keep track of just how much trouble can be
caused by the *threat* or *suggestion* of something....
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting.
With the current state of the government and it's previous legislation, I
would consider that not overreacting at all... We as NANOG'ers need to
make sure that we're in the clue. The issue of non-information leads for
longer troubleshooting, and more irate customers.
To each his own, however..
Thanks,
Adam
Was it really your intention to imply that this recommendation (and which
should have been expected, given the DHS' job) is some kind of a threat?
Consider the source of policy makers that make these
decisions, are clueless to networks and infrastructure
themselves. They fail to understand any costing
metrics
by adding another loop of useless people to he cycle
at
the expense of everyone, which will in the long run
be damaging to the economy of those companies who will
then move those centers offshore to remove the DHS
from
their loop, which causes job loss and skill base
destruction beyond what it already is in the US.
My vote on this proposal is no and contact my gov
rep and complain.
-Henry
--- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg