On 05:16 AM 10/24/02, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
>Alan Hannan wrote:
>>
>> > I don't understand how giving the US federal government management
control
>> > of key components of the Internet will make it more secure.
>>
>> It worked for airline security.
>
>Sure, searching Ray Charles makes me feel
At 05:34 PM 10/24/2002 +0100, Chrisy Luke wrote:
That said, in my limited experience (and it may entirely be superficial)
countries with Government run airport security tend to be more thorough -
and that means Govt. employed people doing the job, not some 2-bit company
they found down the road t
Once upon a time, Jeff Shultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I saw in a forum on ExtremeTech (where they had an article ranting
> about how the internet was almost brought to it's
> knees)http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,646157,00.asp that
> after the root servers attack the gTLD's were att
I saw in a forum on ExtremeTech (where they had an article ranting
about how the internet was almost brought to it's
knees)http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,646157,00.asp that
after the root servers attack the gTLD's were attacked as well, taking
out .biz, .info, and .gov ... can anyone v
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote (on Oct 24):
> There is not one single thing that goes on in airport "security" that
> contributes one whit to actual security.
Having, on more than one occasion been allowed to board an aircraft
in the US whilst accidentally carrying a Leatherman tool (complete
with locking b
Alan Hannan wrote:
>
> > I don't understand how giving the US federal government management control
> > of key components of the Internet will make it more secure.
>
> It worked for airline security.
Sure, searching Ray Charles makes me feel much safer. Asking me whether any
one helped me pac
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Alan Hannan wrote:
> > I don't understand how giving the US federal government management control
> > of key components of the Internet will make it more secure.
>
> It worked for airline security.
Yeah... removing shoes and "randomly" searching peace activists while
a
> Hardly. They have a hard enough time passing information from one squad
to
> another within the FBI, they're never going to be able to survive and
> interoperate in the Information Age against high-tech threats that move
at
> packet speed. And don¹t get me started about Infragard.ugh...
At 07:05 AM 10/24/2002, Alan Hannan wrote:
> It worked for airline security.
Oh, did it now?
Just to paraphrase Seans very professional language:
Before the US government proposes to unilaterally
take responsibility for a particular service it should
consider its track record of providing pa
> I don't understand how giving the US federal government management control
> of key components of the Internet will make it more secure.
It worked for airline security.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Should root servers be located in the "middle" of backbones, instead of stub
> networks? Or do networks naturally "grow" towards root servers?
>
> http://www.idg.net/ic_958962_1793_1-1681.html
> "More federal management of key components of the Int
Hey, Sean, if it is against the law to yell FIRE in a crowded
movie theatre in America...
Why isn't it against the law to (s)Yell "FUD" at Congress ?
:\
Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> It's starting already.
It started with the USA Patriot Act, the beginning paroxysms of
rigor mortis
of the Ame
Its starting already.
I don't mean to diss any of the root server operators, they all do a great
job. But in the past it seemed the federal agency sysadmins had the
most difficult job getting the budget approval for upgrades, and seemed
to always be behind the performance curve.
I don't unders
13 matches
Mail list logo
