The Goat Pen

Bklyn wrote:Speaking of freedom...

But this still doesn’t fully capture Kaspersky’s influence. Back in 2010, a researcher now working for Kaspersky discovered Stuxnet, the US-Israeli worm that wrecked nearly a thousand Iranian centrifuges and became the world’s first openly acknowledged cyberweapon. In May of this year, Kaspersky’s elite antihackers exposed a second weaponized computer program, which they dubbed Flame. It was subsequently revealed to be another US-Israeli operation aimed at Iran. In other words, Kaspersky Lab isn’t just an antivirus company; it’s also a leader in uncovering cyber-espionage.

Kaspersky has 300 million customers. His geek squad uncovers US cyberweapons. And he has deep ties to the KGB’s successors in Moscow.Serving at the pinnacle of such an organization would be a remarkably powerful position for any man. But Kaspersky’s rise is particularly notable—and to some, downright troubling—given his KGB-sponsored training, his tenure as a Soviet intelligence officer, his alliance with Vladimir Putin’s regime, and his deep and ongoing relationship with Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB.

What is mentioned is Kaspersky’s vision for the future of Internet security—which by Western standards can seem extreme. It includes requiring strictly monitored digital passports for some online activities and enabling government regulation of social networks to thwart protest movements. “It’s too much freedom there,” Kaspersky says, referring to sites like Facebook. “Freedom is good. But the bad guys—they can abuse this freedom to manipulate public opinion.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07 ... ersky/all/

sardis wrote:

eCat wrote:its a chicken or an egg thing.

You have a large number of criminals with easy access to guns. You can look at ways to limit access to guns or you can create a an environment where guns aren't an issue.

I was thinking about this earlier where I used the example of gun control in the old west. Carrying a gun was a necessity for these people but when they went into the city limits they willingly handed them over to the local authority. I would assume they did this because they felt safe. Certainly if there was a chance of violence occurring within the city limits those laws would not stand, especially with just a local sheriff and maybe 1 or 2 deputies.

I guess my point is the argument telling law abiding citizens they need to have more hurdles or obstacles to gun ownership in an effort to curb the total number of guns or reduce the guns falling into criminals hands isn't going to hold up if there is a legitimate threat of gun violence already established. You're going to have to create an environment where the average citizen thinks they can go thru life without a gun for self defense.

The first step would be to greatly reduce the threat of gun violence (and that isn't by taking away or limiting the availability of guns by law abiding citizens). To me, it clearly falls on doing whatever is necessary to take the guns out criminals hands.

Similar to the argument about immigration. Deporting illegal aliens serves no purpose if our borders are not secure. First secure the borders so that we've effectively eliminated illegal immigration, then we can effectively talk about immigration reform in this country.

I don't own a gun because I feel safe at my home and at work. I also gave up hunting years ago.

I help at a inner city ministry on Saturdays through my church. If I had to live in some of those neighborhoods, I'd definitely find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally. Police can not give these folks adequate protection whether the criminals in the neighborhood have guns or not. I don't think it is fair to deny these folks the opportunity o protect themselves.

Jungle Rat wrote:So I guess when eCat confronts me & Hedge he will be packing because we are convicted felons. We are dangerous people! Hide the kids because he has no idea what we are capable of.

aTm wrote:Convicted felons should be barred from using the internet.

hedge wrote:I think Romney would be an OK president, but I hate the idea of another 4 years of a bumbling gaffe machine so soon after Bush's 8 year tenure in that role...