America's War on the Web 428
An anonymous reader writes "The Sunday Herald is reporting that while the US is continuing to pursue traditional means of protecting national security, they are also planning to launch a new wave of 'information warfare' to help combat a perceived growing threat of IT security. From the article: 'The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document's recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of "a revolution in the concept of warfare". The report orders three new developments in America's approach to warfare [...] the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.'"
Better Article.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better Article.... (Score:2)
I did like the one point made...as I was cringing a bit about the thought of a country at the touch of a button bringing down another's electronic infrastructure, the part whe
Re:Better Article.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The right way to do it would be to harden your local security, rather than trying any kind of offense. A good offense is only the best defense if you have a freaking target. If you don't have a target, either you have to invent one *cough*Iraq*cough* or you flail about like an idiot and look foolish.
Re:Better Article.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better Article.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's both... They want to be devious co-conspirators who want to rule the world but they really are clueless bumblers.
Unfortunately, their clueless bumbling is a threat to world stability without any real control ... worst of both worlds.
Re:Better Article.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a case of stupid-productive people.
Given a matrix with two qualities: smart vs stupid, and productive vs unproductive
smart productive people are the best - they do lots of stuff and do it well
smart unproductive people are generally non-harmful - they do stuff well, but just not much of it
stupid unproductive people are generally non-harmful too - they might do stupid stuff, but they don't do much of it
It's the stupid-productive people that you really have to watch out for. Not only do they do stupid stuff, they do a lot of it.
Re:Better Article.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better Article.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This article and summary seems like a huge troll to me. It's carefully worded to be inflamatory, and appears to be, in large part, wrong. The US isn't preparing for war "on" the internet... as much as it's preparing for a war via the internet. The article goes on to use a bunch of careful prepositional games where I have to guess whether the US is actually thinking about attacking the internet... or considering how warfare will be conducted via the internet. It then goes on to quote a bunch of unnamed military guys saying things that I've never heard them say before...
Every plan I know of details a plan for electronic warfare using the internet.... yet here you have some terrible editorial trying to stir the spot, feeding into the slashdot groupthink and... stirring the pot. You already have people talking about the US "attacking" the internet. This is just shoddy journalism and bad editorializing to preach to a bunch of sheep. And the sheep cometh...
Via & On (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure they intend to fight via the internet, but that appears to be just the beginning. Page six clearly says "We Must Fight the Net. DoD is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to 'Fight the Net.'"
Re:Better Article.... (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno. I think it's a good idea to attack the Internet, given that warfare will be conducted on it in the future. Kinda like attacking the physical planet itself, because warfare is
Re:Better Article.... (Score:4, Informative)
From the Rand Corp. [rand.org]
They're 'non-partisan', so they are at least making an effort at actually being "Fair and Balanced". And they've been writing papers about Information Warfare since the mid-90s
Re:gov't control of ionosphere - H.A.A.R.P. (Score:3, Funny)
HAARP is controlled by the Reptilians [greatdreams.com], right? And to get to their secret lair you just go down Mel's Hole [wikipedia.org].
Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
The website for Al-Qaeda should be near the bottom of the list for the defense department.
Everyone has the idea that terrorists will one day hack into the power grid and cripple the stock market. They should focus on protecting the power grids from physical attacks before they start focusing on "cyber terrorism" where they could take the grid by "hacking into the system."
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
If you realize the main point of these protections is to get people elected, this makes perfect sense.
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:5, Funny)
"You have just received the Taliban virus.
Since we have no electricity or computers, you are on the honor system.
Please delete all of your files on your hard drive. Then forward this message to everyone in your address book.
Praise Allah."
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:3, Funny)
How like them, a suicide run.
They didn't get me! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:4, Funny)
Which is like the guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man...
He calmly walks to the dresser, opens a drawer, pulls out a revolver and puts it to his temple.
His wife says: " For God's sake, don't!"
To which he replies: " Shut up woman. You're next!"
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
Communications in a war or whatever they want to call blowing shit up this week is fairly important.
Not having an a plan in place to disrupt your enemy's and protect your own communications would be irresponsible, even if there is no official war.
I do agree with your comment about protecting other things first, but there's no reason to not to this just because oth
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:2)
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
They are more organized and better planned than you think. There are undoubtedly people in Al Qaeda who are smarter than you. Their stated goal is to bring instability to the American economy and thus American society. The moment you s
Sure, but cyber-warfare VERY likely (Score:5, Interesting)
The article may have briefly talked about terrorism, but I suspect the real danger comes from state-sponsored cyber-attacks, like from China. Terrorism is just a convenient explanation to use to the public. You can't come out and say you're preparing for an attack by China now, can you?
BTW, for those who think that cyber-warfare is a science-fiction concept, I draw your attention to the following analysis of Operation Allied Force [af.mil]. In particular, the section regarding cyber-attacks on surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems to protect our fighters (F-22, F-35):
Information warfare WILL happen, my friends. In fact, it's happening now. No, you won't find that written up in the newspaper. Do a little bit of googling and see what you come up with. :)
GMD
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:2)
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:2)
Here's the problem: if that turns out to be possible, then J. Random Terrorist could do it from half a world away. No amount of concrete and razor wire would protect against a motivated cracker with a laptop and an Iridium uplink.
They should focus on protecting the power grids from physical attacks before they start focusing on "cyber terrorism" where they could take the grid by "hacking into the s
Re:Cyber-terror Unlikely (Score:2)
They've already attacked (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They've already attacked (Score:2)
Its those damned Americans who keep spamming us with their stock hyping and illegal drugs promotions.
The lines blur once more. (Score:2, Insightful)
E.g. an American creates an anti-us website, and happens to cross-link an image located on a Pakistani website. Now this is considered an "international communication channel" which justifies to the NSA full sniffing of packets, forfeiture of logs from the ISP, etc.
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net]
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:2)
The real question, of course, is when and how such plans are put into practice, if ever. If they
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:2)
You must be new here
Seriously though, a lot of people seem to forget that the job of military planners is to sit and think about the worse case scenario and have some sort of plan to deal with that. It is part of their job. But, alas, around here, its cause for people to break out their tin foil hats.
Invading Canada (Score:2)
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:2)
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:2, Interesting)
Has this actually happened, or are you crying wolf? If so, to whom did it happen, when did it happen, what fallout has there been...? In short, what are the relevant details to prove such an event ever occurred?
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting choice of words. Not "a website critical of US policy" or an "anti-Bush website". An "anti-us" website.
This is why conservatives don't trust American liberals (leftists). We have always suspected the "I love my country but hate its policies" line was really just a public face for "My country isn't perfect so I'm willing to work against the interests of my fellow citizens".
If someone creates an "anti-us" site, not just a site critica
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:5, Insightful)
And its sad that both words have been hijacked. Today's liberal is in reality a socialist,
while today's conservative would be either authoritarian or national socialist.
Classical Liberalism [wikipedia.org]
Classical Conservatism [wikipedia.org]
It is truly a shame that the country has wandered so far from its roots....
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:4, Informative)
Umm...yes it is, at least in the US. It may get you noticed, but it is most assuredly a 1st amendment civil right. Congress may try to take it away, but that is why the courts are a check and balance to congress.
The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921. Legal experts view the Sedition Act as being antithetical to the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Anti-governmental-defamation laws similar to the Sedition Act are still in place in some of the world's most repressive countries, including North Korea and Libya.
-and more recently,
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. asserted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same with only three dissents.
Re:The lines blur once more. (Score:2)
I doubt that the government's gathering information by using the internet is anything new. I mean, how much privacy can you expect when the medium is as public as can be. I am more concerned that the content of websites, even those domestic sites which are merely critical of government policies, will be seen as legitimate targets of reprisal because they "aid and abet the enemy" when in fact they do nothing more than promote a view of patriotism th
All's fair? (Score:2)
Cyber Attacks (Score:5, Funny)
smac is ever appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
--Pravin Lal
Re:smac is ever appropriate (Score:2)
Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, we are able (most of the time) to have oversight on what the government is doing to its own citizens, and that hasn't worked out so well in the US so far... can I mention here things like: The pristine bullet, McCarthy, weather control, and a number of other things that 'seemed ok at the time' but later turned out very wrong, and would have been stopped with oversight.
WHO (not the doctor or the World Health Organization) is going to monitor those in the government that will be monitoring the Internet? Mr Orwell, we miss you!
Re:Let me guess... (Score:2)
Wall of the 'US internet' (Score:3, Interesting)
So is the US essentially saying that it wants to control (or influence in nicer terms) the entire internet?
Re:Wall of the 'US internet' (Score:2)
Though I have to agree, a country wide wall of LCD's would be impressive!
Hmmm.. (Score:2)
Scary (Score:2, Insightful)
It can also be used to say, spread the truth about illegal covert activities by the US against sovereign nations, allow oppressed people to get word out about their plight, give Americans a say in ho
Re:Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:2)
The Pentagon is
If it's illegal for Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it's illegal for Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
PsyOps + Internet Advertising (Score:2, Funny)
Re:PsyOps + Internet Advertising (Score:2)
America's war on * (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there anything that America doesn't "wage war" against? It's like a mentally retarded child who responds in the same way, regardless of stimulus.
Re:America's war on * (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you think of one, you'll make big bucks as a speech writer.
Re:America's war on * (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America's war on * (Score:2)
That's because its leaders (and their supporters) are mentally retarded children who respond in the same way, regardless of simulus...
Re:America's war on * (Score:4, Funny)
Furthermore it raises some interesting questions: If, for an example the US government, or an agent thereof seizes narcotics as part of the war on drugs, woudln't the Geneva convention dictate that the seized drugs should be treated as a prisoner of war?
War comes with responsibilities you know...
Re: The Perceived American war on * (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Where's your authority to act as the world's authoritarian father-figure? Because you have the largest, most well-equipped army? This is the sort of attitude that gets planes flown into tall American buildings - "We know best; when we bomb you, it's for your own good".
It's not America's responsibility to "steer the whole damn world"; it's America's responsibility to steer America. That's what makes sovereign nations sovereign - they steer themselves. The reason many people react against the war in Iraq is because it shows how much America respects the sovereignty of other nations; it doesn't. It wages a war that much of it's populace is against, that was not sanctioned by most other nations, and that, after the fact, has little evidence supporting the original justification for it.
People are are against America because they're afraid of America. You are the last superpower. And you go to war on little more than a whim.
Ultimately, it's up to them.
So if they decide, democratically, to institute a fundamentalist religious government, you're not going to blow the crap out of them again? If it was ultimately "up to them", then you should have left their country alone, and let them sort it out themselves. You're not some school teacher intervening in a fight between school-kids. You are one adult telling all the others how they should behave at the point of a gun.
Re: The Perceived American war on * (Score:3)
I do see your point that we shouldn't be a father to the rest of the world. In fact, I agree. However, a father figure so to speak is needed these days. No matter what boundaries we draw
Re: The Perceived American war on * (Score:3)
It is simple, and cynical, but I don't know if it's too far off-base. I think the war in Iraq was motivated more by politics than by national security. That may or may not be true, but I don't think I'm alone in holding that opinion.
I do see your point that we shouldn't be a father to the rest of the world. In fact, I agree. However, a father figure so to speak is needed these days. No matter what boundaries w
A "huge bomb of democracy"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The former: resignation, the latter takes a bit longer to explain:
The US is, compared to any other western society, extremely religious (that Bush actually used the word "crusade" to refer to the Iraq War didn't exactly help, either). Granted, there are quite religious countries in Europe, too (Poland, Ireland and Italy), but not to the same extend, and they seem to be more successful s
Boooooo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Throughout history capturing and using enemy information has been a lot more useful in combat than attacking the information of the enemy.
Re:Boooooo! (Score:2)
In other recent news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Should they not get their house in order firstbefore thinking about greater things?
Mmmm... I think I am starting to see a pattern here.
Z.
Interweb, you are going... (Score:2)
Whining in 5...4...3...2... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, this is just being smart. Keep in mind how prevalent botnets are, how they basically rule all of Asia, Eastern Europe, most of South America, and even substantial chunks of America and Western Europe. Keep in mind how much spam those networks churn out on a daily basis, how much money they earn the people who own them. Then realize that spam is about the *least* harmful thing they could be used for.
Re:Whining in 5...4...3...2... (Score:2)
On the other hand with the Interne, if the US was really interested in 'protecting' its citizens it would be making efforts to control its area of the internet (though I admit that thats a vague term).
If the real goal is to take control over what passes over the pipes - thats just US foreign policy applied to the Internet.
There are more eloquent pos
Re:Whining in 5...4...3...2... (Score:2)
Now taking a more pragmatic approach, how many 'key' systems do you think your government really has plugged into the internet willy-nilly? You think they actually travel the same wires as joe six-pack? Do you really think joe six-pack could DOS your defense network? If you think that then
1. Its untrue and you're completely trolling to nobody but self gratification
2. Its untrue and
Re:Whining in 5...4...3...2... (Score:2)
Do you honestly think the only way to significant impact Western societies and/or economies is to attack 'key' government systems?
IT security is in a piss-poor state across the board, whether we're talking about 'key' government systems or non-'key' civilian systems. For the US military to *fail* to look into that weakness would be a grotesque dereliction of duty.
What a fantastic idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media - from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) - to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.
Wow, now that's a good idea. I sure don't see anything immoral here, and certainly no potential for abuse. After all, the only way to have a stable democratic state which protects its citizens' freedoms is if that state controls the media and uses it to knowingly distribute lies and propoganda. The founding fathers knew this, which was why when they wrote the first amendment, they... Oh wait, that's right. The media is supposed to be independent from the state. A state that uses the media to distribute lies is a mortal danger to freedom, and needs to be deposed, quickly.
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
Do I really even need to comment on this one? Combined with their planned propoganda campaign, they're looking to completely exclude targeted populations from recieving accurate and timely information. Again, if the true objective here was to combat terrorists by spreading democracy, this would obviously be massively counterproductive. But of course we all know that this is not about spreading democracy, or combating terrorism, any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were about freedom and democracy. It is about control.
Re:What a fantastic idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
"We're thinking that we'll take things to a whole new level." Commented a representative from the department of defense. "You know, when our enemies try to download new ring tones, all they'll hear is the theme song to 'Team America, World Police' whenever they get a call."
It's Happening Now People (Score:5, Insightful)
"IMAGINE a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population; and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will."
Imagine? We don't have to imagine, we are already living it!
The irony is, it's not the military that's waging a ware of dis-information, it's our own government waging a war of dis-information on us! Examples: Terror Alerts, WMDs, Climate Change, Evolution...Contradictory statements are being released by government officials. The government rebrands military operations: The War on Terror, The Global War on Terror, The Long War, or The Global War on Extremism...
This is indeed an interesting time in which we live.
Re:It's Happening Now People (Score:2)
Re:It's Happening Now People (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OK let me get this straight (Score:2)
I'd really appreciate it if Mr. "War-on-terror" Bush did something more useful for the internet and getting rid of the ROOT CAUSE of computer terrorism: Microsoft and their crappy OS.
War on the internet? (Score:2)
Señor Bush... (Score:2)
My first question (Score:2, Insightful)
/. it! (Score:2, Funny)
Cyber Terror? Is it Really That Terrifying? (Score:2, Interesting)
And really large defacements/ DDoS attacks haven't occured much, if at all in recent history. I
this makes about as much sense as... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your DDOS and raise you a JDAM (Score:2, Funny)
War on this, war on that... (Score:4, Interesting)
And here I always thought a "war" was "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."
Well, the Internet is sort of like a party, I guess.
I also always thought that it was Congress that had the power to declare war, and that it wasn't war until Congress said it was war.
But, OK, Bush had is way on the war thing, but just let him try issuing a letter of marque and reprisal and a betcha Congress will hit him upside the head with a check and a balance.
Wake-up call for the world (Score:3, Interesting)
Decentralize the comm infrastructure. As widely as technically possible. Redesign it to fail gracefully. Deploy mesh networking as backup system. For cellular telephony, form a mesh network of both the base stations and the handsets themselves, so even if all the bases are destroyed the handsets still can maintain the network themselves, at least for text messaging. Same for wifi routers and other kinds of comm nodes. As a non-military benefit, this could serve as a fallback for cases of "normal" infrastructure overload.
Develop and deploy ultrawideband technology for consumer devices, making it difficult to impossible to jam the band using the military EWAR toys. This should also make the communication more robust against non-military noise sources.
Develop and deploy phase-array antennas for consumer devices, to automatically adjust the antenna patterns according to the position of the comm devices, both saving batteries and rejecting jamming signals from unwanted directions.
Design the civilian infrastructure to be hardened against both intentional attacks and natural disasters taking out swaths of infrastructure. Make it a matter of national security.
All the technologies required are already existing. Now they just have to be brought out of the labs and released on the street.
Last but not least, prepare lower-tech fallback to establish networks disseminating the people's version of truth to counter the occupant's version, as you can not rely on the infrastructure providers. Prepare a diverse range of tactics, from people physically meeting together and swapping printouts and tapes to low-power FM and TV stations made of repurposed consumer equipment (eg. an antenna connected to the modulated output of a VCR - covers only a block or so but better than nothing. Covers significantly more with an output amplifier.) So take out your old book about antennas and read it today. You do not know when your expertise will be needed.
Be ready. Be prepared. Be Pentagon-proof.
But you can't bug decentralized infrastructure.... (Score:2)
Re:But you can't bug decentralized infrastructure. (Score:2)
Also do not forget the potential of wifi and bluetooth-enabled smartphones, together with user-installable software. I personally do not care if the decentralized functionality is carrier-pushed and legal, or blackmarket and homemade, as long as it is wid
I'm sick of war and warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently I downloaded "Why [thepiratebay.org] We [thepiratebay.org] Fight [thepiratebay.org]" a BBC documentary detailing the buildup and creation of the US's Industrial Military Complex. It goes a long way to explain how it happened, why it was useful and why things are the way they are today. It spells out in great detail, for example, how the US put Saddam Hussein into power and GAVE him his weapons of mass destruction. (The US was fine with them using them as long as the humanity they used them against were considered enemies of the administration in power at that moment.)
Watching this really helped me to change my perspective on what "war" is and how it's being abused by the current "system" in power in the US. In short, it's all about power and making money. It has nothing to do with world peace or spreading democracy. I believe now more than ever before that we can spread peace and democracy through peaceful and genrous means.
Whether you agree with the information presented or not, I urge anyone to see this. Refute it or believe it. But I think it's quite enlightening.
Re:I'm sick of war and warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
As Einstein so famously (and accurately) stated, one cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Any state with a substantial standing army will have a propensity to USE that standing army. There's money to be made, lots of money. Plus, as history has shown time and time again, people are more willing to surrender their rights to the state in times of war. A large, powerful standing army is a first step to tyrrany. Besides, a massive standing army is not necessary for defensive purposes (such as fending off an invasion), their only purpose is offensive. As long as the US government has access to the strong military you say it should have, it will continue to be used by politicos for political and personal gain.
Nothing New Under the Sun (Score:3, Interesting)
One question (Score:2, Insightful)
And elections?
Internet warefare (Score:3, Funny)
President: Let's PHP-Nuke the bastards!
Re:Is this new? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is this new? (Score:2)
No [aircraft] carrier in cyberspace (Score:2)
But look at what happens when the game is changes. A few punks go buy $20 of box cutters, hijack some planes and fly them into some buildings. There's nobody to point the aircraft carriers at.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is important to disassociate political states and their actions from the individuals the state opresses and dominates. There are many Americans who do not support or condone the actions of the state, and many others (myself included) who do not recognize even the legitimacy of the state's very existence.
Re:April fools joke right? (Score:5, Insightful)