Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Collateral Damage From Cyber Warfare?

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the something-to-think-about dept.

Security 134

theodp writes "If you're thinking about applying for that open US cyber warfare czar position, Robert X. Cringely points out that you will have to effectively function as a world cyber warfare czar, a fact that neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have yet been willing to embrace, at least in public. The international nature of today's outsourced-and-offshored IT business has big implications for US security. Try to do a security audit of your company's technical resources in Argentina or Bangladesh, suggests Bob, and see what nightmare is unveiled. Toss some random Code Gods into the mix, says Cringely, and it's really too tough to predict who might win in a game of US vs. Albania."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm... (3, Funny)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294261)

Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?

Re:Hmmm... (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294335)

But how will the rich hold on to their power and privilege if there is a real free market in labor, and workers can move wherever pays the most?

Re:Hmmm... (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294617)

Having a real free world market is the rich's wet dream, and they've effectively accomplished it. You have H1-B visas so the rich can hire Indians, who don't have the high prices we do. They use Mexicans here illegally to do jobs that Americans would do if they were paid appropriately.

How is a worker to "move where they pay the most" when he as no job? No job means no money for most people.

In a world you describe it would be a lot easier for the rich to hold their power and privelege. Why do you think the rich lobby for things like NAFTA?

Re:Hmmm... (3, Interesting)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294745)

Don't you understand the one way nature of those regs? They don't want a free market at all. They want control, under the guise of "freedom". That "freedom" is for them only, and we get American Idol. You're not getting it. No borders means freedom for everybody to live where they please, not where the authorities grant you permission for somebody else's profit. Right now you are property of the state.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295145)

You know, if us suckers would stop governing our daily affairs with money, we wouldn't have the problem. Giving someone money is like handing them your voice in society. It's like a vote that you never get to take back even when you realize you've been conned. Which means conning suckers and using them harshly is the number one mechanism to achieve power. Is that what you want to support?

The state isn't supposed to rule you. The state is all of you speaking together with one voice. Stop being cowards and claim your birthright.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

keatonguy (1001680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296439)

+1 Socialist.

Re:Hmmm... (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296563)

I have 9,826,630 square km (3,794,066 sq mi) I can hypothetically live in. But I don't have the freedom to live anywhere in that three million square miles, as I can't live without money. I'm living in Springfield because that's where I found work 20 years ago when I'd been out of a job for a while; I'd rather be living in the St Louis area, where I grew up. Maybe I'll move back there when I retire in a few years, but then again it will depend on money, too. Will I be able to sell my house? Will I be able to afford to buy one there?

Only independantly wealthy people have freedom to live where they want; the homeless do in theory, but in practice they don't have the money needed for travel.

I'm not the property of the state, I'm the property of my employer. The state is also the property of my (and your) employer. The world is and has always been owned and ruled by the very rich.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297087)

but in practice they don't have the money needed for travel.

If one has legs, one has the means to travel just about anywhere. I will grant you that, at least in the lower 48 states, it seems there are very few, if any, places where one can truly live off the land ala Lewis and Clark, so you'd still need money for food.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297599)

I'm not the property of the state...

Try to take one step outside that 9,826,630 square km you got without official documentation. Let me know what happens. In fact try to move within that space without papers. It's a very big, and probably very comfortable prison cell, but it's still prison. You are 92797. You are not a free man. practice they don't have the money needed for travel.

Money [] ?

Re:Hmmm... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294851)

You have H1-B visas so the rich can hire Indians, who don't have the high prices we do.

Actually, free trade means you can ship the work off to be done, so you don't even have to hire anyone, just contract.

They use Mexicans here illegally to do jobs that Americans would do if they were paid appropriately.

That's not really free trade either, it's slavery-plus. You underpay the workers, it's actually cheaper than housing them and trying to keep them healthy, and make a return on your investment. At the end of their period of employment you can just deport them and even skip a payment. You don't even have to whip anybody.

In a world you describe it would be a lot easier for the rich to hold their power and privelege. Why do you think the rich lobby for things like NAFTA?

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement, name to the contrary.

The importance of NAFTA clauses that keep out foreign goods [] came to light as U.S. clothing manufacturers railed against the import of wool suits from our NAFTA partner Canada. The suits in question were made from third-country wool not covered by NAFTA rules of origin. Since Canadian tariffs on foreign wool were lower than U.S. tariffs (10 percent vs. 34 percent), Canadian suits sold for less and soon claimed a large share of the U.S. market. The fact that the entire discussion of this issue centered on closing this loophole in NAFTA rather than on lowering the injurious U.S. tariff on wool should prove how devoted NAFTA's supporters are to free trade.

If you can come up with some actual examples of large-volume free trade in the USA, I'll be interested. I don't think you can.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294893)

NAFTA let goods and money flow as if there were no borders, but not poor people. Mexicans with no money still somehow manage to get into the US, disproving your second point. H1-B visas are an example of unfair regulation of the labor market, not a free market.

A real free market requires regulation in order to remain free, but the regulations need to favor the less powerful. Currently they do just the opposite.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295137)

H-1Bs barely affect the economy. There are maybe 500,000 people working under an H-1B (that's making generous assumptions, 250,000 is probably more accurate), out of 140 million working Americans (there are another 15-20 million Americans who are unemployed but want a job).

Now, those 500,000 H-1B workers are certainly competing with Americans for jobs, but they are not completely eroding the market they are competing in, a market which employs tens of millions of people.

As far as Mexicans, they benefit you and I as much as they benefit the rich, if they were paying Americans 'properly', things like produce would cost far more at the store.

Re:Hmmm... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28295993)

they are not completely eroding the market they are competing in, a market which employs tens of millions of people.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if 475k out of the 500k weren't in one industry, that the vast majority weren't controlled by a handful of companies, and if the "market" was really 10 million rather than the closer estimate of 4 million. 8-10% of the work force can seriously warp the playing field.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297357)

They use Mexicans here illegally to do jobs that Americans would do if they were paid appropriately.

First, millions of Americans who, unlike you, have a bunch of neurons to rub together, take offense at an obvious nonsensical and ignorant remark: plent of Americans have been laid off (ever hear of Hormel) and had undocumented or illegal workers hired in their place (this also has occurred in dramatic proportions in the construction industry over the preceding 10 to 20 years). Also, many Americans work side-by-side illegals every day of the year - so cut this foundation-sponsored bullcrap already!

Having a real free world market is the rich's wet dream, and they've effectively accomplished it.

While I agree with your sentiment, you are once again completely wrong as there has NEVER BEEN a free market - it has always been a RIGGED MARKET - with labor arbitrage and the monopolization of land AND capital (which, unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans cannot comprehend due to the propagandized manner in which they are raised, and the fact that so much "media" is controlled and socially engineered by those 50,000? foundations extant across the land).

Humbly suggest you bone up on real economcy democracy [] , my good fellow.

how many fallacies can we count? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294655)

1. nationalism a populist force. not an artificial force propped up by financial influence

2. the rich are served by poorer workers in other countries. there is in fact a free market in labor, since there are rules on paper, but nothing really stops corporations from shopping for the locations of factories in the countries with the cheapest workers available

3. if workers could move wherever they want, they would all move to the places with the highest salaries. this would dramatically increase the pool of workers in a given field in those locations, thereby bringing down the salaries in that field in that location. thereby nullifying the value of moving in the first place

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294793)

1.) Nationalism is an invention of the rich intended to make the poor support the interests of the rich. To the poor, one lord is much the same as the next, why should they care who rules them?

2.) Ah, I see. Rules on paper make a free market. Rules that let the rich move their business wherever labor is cheapest, but does not let labor move where the pay is the best.

3.) You've just described how the free market is supposed to work.

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295091)

No, you silly fool. Nationalism is not an invention of the rich. Nationalism is an evolution from feudalism, which evolved from tribalism.

As if human beings could actually invent and implement something as complex as nationalism. HAHA!

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295597)

How did Nationalism evolve from feudalism? How did feudalism evolve from tribalism? Who's interest did both events serve? How is a sense of national identity complex?

Your analysis is weak. HAHA!

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296323)

The analysis is right on. And furthermore, tribalism evolved from the way animals mark their territory. It all followed a perfectly natural path. And it proves that animals and humans are the same thing. The interest is serves is that of domination. A very natural phenomenon, even with inanimate objects. Big stars swallow little stars that get too close. Everything "tries" to get as big as it can. It will accrue as much material as it can until it gets so big and gets hot and blows up.

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (3, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296517)

Cooperation is no less natural than domination. What's your point? Tribalism evolved from peeing on bushes?

There are two cultures in the world. The culture of feast and the culture of famine. You don't even know what the first one looks like, do you? Read 'The Continuum Concept' for a look at what non starvation oriented human societies look like. Look at the bonobo chimpanzees of South Africa for an animal example.

Everything does NOT try to get as big as it can. The universe is NOT total war of all against all, that is a culture of famine concept. And it is a self reinforcing, self fulfilling concept.

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297423)

Tribalism evolved from peeing on bushes?

Yes, only now we put up flags and fences to mark our territory.. Doesn't smell as bad(not that all the dead bodies smell any better). Provides the illusion of civility, but the concept is exactly the same. There was a time when it may have been necessary. But since we can move resources to wherever they are needed now, that's no longer the case, but with millions of years of animal instinct behind it, and appealing to intellect without understanding that, will assure it will be here to stay for some some. A quick glance at 'The Continuum Concept' seems to understand the instinctive nature of our existence. It seems to indicate we are just as natural as nature itself. The trouble may just come from our denial of that. I shall read the rest.

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297581)

Nothing can possibly be unnatural. It is important to remember that there is more to nature than competition. Cooperation is at least as important (although some would argue that cooperation is simply a competitive strategy.) Altruism is real, and genetically selected for, because it provides clear benefits to organisms that practice it.

Human nature is complex, and can not be defined outside of the environment humans are enmeshed in. If everyone has the means to punish unfairness and selfishness in others, and cooperation is rewarded, most people will be cooperative. On the other hand, no one likes being taken advantage of, so if people see unfairness and selfishness going unpunished, they will be selfish and unfair themselves.

Re:how many fallacies can we count? (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297679)

Nothing can possibly be unnatural.

I'm very sorry if I let on otherwise. Of that I am in full agreement, along with the rest of your post there.

nationalism is an invention of the rich? (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295285)


nationalism is in fact a corrosive force in the world. i share your hatred of it. i share your hatred of the rich too. but at least i understand what nationalism is and what the rich aristocracy is a hell of a lot better than you do. the notion that it is invented by the rich is retarded

nationalism is really just a form of tribalism, extended over a broader area because of commonalities of ethnic allegiance and shared language. it requires a modern media to drive it, and this explains why and how modern european nationalism arose after the invention of the printing press

but it's all self-emerging, it requires no force to drive it. there is no funding needed to create nationalism, it is just something that appears amongst passionate nationalists, most often the poor middle class, in fact: study the history of any nations nationalistic heroes

in fact, much of the agenda and interests of the rich and the aristocratic classes throughout history is diametrically opposed to nationalistic forces, and the rich have frequently succumbed to populist nationalist uprisings throughout history. the aristocracy was and is often described by nationalist narratives as sell-outs ready to betray their own people

not that plenty of rich in many countries are often enthusiastically nationalistic, but this not a cause-effect relationship, in either direction. just look at the history of communist china or communist russia if you want to see a better example of the rich being skewered in the name of populist nationalist uprisings, nevermind the fact that nationalist instincts in those countries are still continuously manipulated propagandisitically according to governmental instruments- not the rich

Re:nationalism is an invention of the rich? (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295683)

Who benefits from nationalist sentiment in China and Russia? The rich. Oh, sure, not EVERY rich person, some get skewered by it, but it is still part of the owning class game, a manipulation of the populace, to get them to cheer on their own oppressors.

"He may be a greedy, oppressive bastard, but he's OUR greedy, oppressive bastard!" is the sentiment that nationalism encourages. Really, it's a means of getting the oppressed to lay down their lives defending their oppressors from other oppressors.

moron, get an education (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295887)

study history

nationalist uprisings throughout history are largely middle class in nature, and almost automatically are enemies of the contemporary aristocratic elite of the time

here's an example: []

all original nationalistic movements HAD to make enemies of the rich of their time. the rich were entrenched in the political structures of the time, and therefore the rich were made rich by political arrangements that depended upon the suppression of nationalistic movements in order to continue to exist

i am not saying that nationalism is a good force. i dislike it like you

i am not saying that the rich are a good force. i dislike the rich like you

however, unlike you, i understand the concepts better. therefore, i am better at being able to actually fight and defeat nationalism and the entrenched upper class. would you like to defeat nationalism? would you like to defeat the upper class? then please, fucking educate yourself and stop spouting ignorance

here, i'll get the ball rolling for you: [] []

Re:moron, get an education (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296053)

Funny how none of your examples ended up benefiting the poor, and simply ended up trading one set of oppressors for another. But that couldn't have been on purpose, nope.

exactly (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296199)

and whatever you are fighting for would equally be eventually corrupted and serve only an entrenched aristocracy, and equally require revolution in order to right injustices. this is the inevitable cycle of history. every revolution is fought by the commoners in the name of righting injustice by the ruling class, and every revolution eventually decays into nothing more than a new ruling class. this observation applies equally to whatever the hell you think you are fighting for

that's why its called history, moron, you should study it someday, you would learn this. it has valuable things to teach you about your own beliefs

instead, you naively and ignorantly believe that you are the only person who has ever thought to fight for something that could never be corrupted. you really believe you are immune to the lessons of history? then you more than anyone else are doomed to repeat history

as you well understand, communism in china and russia was fought for by peasants against the rich, in exactly the same ecstatic belief that corruption by the rich aristocracy was now finally being defeated forever. what happened? they merely stayed poor, and merely served a new aristocracy. i mean it is a cosmic joke that the most ultracapitalist country on the planet right now is ruled by the chinese communist party, an ideology supposedly diametrically opposed to capitalism. what a farce!

you really should study history, you're quite green. for your sake, i hope you are 13 years old. ideologically, you are only 13 years old, if not actually chronologically 13 years old

Re:exactly (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296443)

Tell me, what victories over oppression have you achieved? Your attitude tells me that, if you were to achieve any, YOU would be more than happy to be the next oppressor. YOU know better than anyone else, YOU have the True Knowledge and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

I've actually done concrete things to make the world a better place working as an organizer for Food not Bombs, Homes not Jails, and the IWW. What have you done, besides being an insufferable, self aggrandizing jackass?

you are describing now something of an ecosystem (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296893)

of ideology, of faithful believers, villains of hate, and cynics who choose not to engage in the retarded battle, seeing it all as pointless (me)

certainly, the naive fool is an eternal force in world history. there is nothing new in you under the sun, and someone like you will always be around. the cynical corrupt asshole is another one, which you peg me as. but i personally consider myself more like the goat in animal farm, muriel: []

Muriel, although not one of the most outstanding characters in George Orwell's Animal Farm, has a great deal of symbolism behind her. A typical worker, Muriel completes her tasks without complaining, nevertheless, seldom works more than she has to. , Boxer, the hard-working carthorse, symbolizes the proletariat, overworked, underpaid and always kept under strict control. Even though George Orwell does not mention Muriel very much in Animal Farm, this goat adds a lot of profundity to the storyline, since Muriel's symbolism is very insightful. Unfortunately, Muriel, being only a small portion of the population, has no motivation to make the rest of the animals realize that they are in worse conditions than when they were when humans ran the farm. She simply accomplishes her errands without protesting. This character is a simple-looking, calm, white goat that can be considered as an "average farm animal," never standing out above the rest, yet, never lagging behind. She is a simple looking white goat that reads the commandments to Clover whenever she requests her to do so. This knowledgeable goat represents a small minority of the working class who are educated enough to find out things on their own and decide for themselves.

in other words, i see the passionate fools like yourself, and i see the villainy of the leaders, but i see its a giant cycle of history, constantly renweing itself. and so i have decided to simply retire from this ridiculous drama, and enjoy mylife, and ride the tide whatever it may be, knowing it is all retarded and foolish

you, of course, would be boxer, eternal fool for the value of revolution, as if it will really change anything:

Boxer: The name Boxer is cleverly used by Orwell as a metaphor for the Boxer Rebellion in China in the early twentieth century. It was this rebellion which signaled the beginning of communism in red China. This communism, much like the distorted Stalin view of socialism, is still present today in the oppressive social government in China. Boxer and Clover are used by Orwell to represent the proletariat, or unskilled labor class in Russian society. This lower class is naturally drawn to Stalin (Napoleon) because it seems as though they will benefit most from his new system. Since Boxer and the other low animals are not accustomed to the "good life," they can't really compare Napoleon's government to the life they had before under the czars (Jones). Also, since usually the lowest class has the lowest intelligence, it is not difficult to persuade them into thinking they are getting a good deal.
          The proletariat is also quite good at convincing each other that communism is a good idea. Orwell supports this contention when he narrates, "Their most faithful disciples were the two carthorses, Boxer and Clover. Those two had great difficulty in thinking anything out for themselves, but having once accepted the pigs as their teachers, they absorbed everything that they were told, and passed it on to the other animals by simple arguments."
          Later, the importance of the proletariat is shown when Boxer suddenly falls and there is suddenly a drastic decrease in work productivity. But still he is taken for granted by the pigs, who send him away in a glue truck. Truly Boxer is the biggest poster-child for gullibility.

Re:you are describing now something of an ecosyste (0)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297341)

How much you know of me from so little evidence! I bow before your all encompassing wisdom, oh cynical goat.

You certainly have gone to a lot of effort to convince me to believe something negative about myself. Why is that so important to you, who do as little as possible, and see yourself above the fray? Maybe your cynicism is a mere excuse, and people who are not cynical threaten your self image?

i apologize (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297807)

you are 100% correct

i am merely flattering myself, thinking i could convince a random soul that the world is more complicated than they think it is

please, go back to your simple beliefs about nationalism and the aristocracy, forget little old me attempting to suggest it is more complicated than you think

simple minds need simple ideas to motivate their passions, and to suggest that it would kill your passions to suppose things are more complicated, is of course tomfoolery on my part, not yours. that a deeper knowledge of history and your beliefs and where you fit in the larger scheme of things might not be something the simple workhorse of the revolution wants, or even needs

it was indeed foolish of me to think i could pick a random bit of flotsam and jetsam of history, the simpleminded idealist, and suggest to them more complicated concepts. i should have just left the pieces fall as they do, as they always have, over and over again, throughout history, and hewed to my own self-stated path of staying out of the fray

indeed, to engage you otherwise, exactly as you suggest, is truly hypocritical of me

so: ignore me, i apologize, go back to your regularly scheduled programming

the rich feed nationalism!
the rich feed nationalism!
four legs good! two legs bad!
four legs good! two legs bad!

Re:i apologize (0, Offtopic)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298035)

I don't need to ignore you, that would be counterproductive.

If you need to believe that I am simple minded, foolish, or naive, go right ahead, it really doesn't bother me. But you might want to examine your reasons for thinking that.

passion doesn't have to be stupid (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298173)

but it often is

i reacted to your mischaracterization of the rich being the source of nationalism, since that idea is so completely out of whack with historical fact

if anyone needs to examine their reasons for thinking something, it is you

but of course, you take my attacks on your statements as attacks on your core beliefs and your ability to be passionate about them

you can still believe as you do, you can still be passionate about your beliefs. but you need to STRENGTHEN your passions and your beliefs by correcting them where they are obviously laughably wrong

or: i'm just a tool of dick cheney

you decide


Re:exactly (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296923)

You know, when you don't do any quoting, and the comments you're replying to are dropping off the radar, the effect of seeing the cascade of your comments with nothing in between is much like listening to a schizophrenic have a conversation with himself.

Quoting: It's not just so you know what you're replying to.

Re:exactly (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297501)

Shut up, voice in my head! Oh yeah, you shut up!

You, Good Citizen, have my RESPECT (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297551)

My Good Citizen, spun, you indeed have my deep and abiding respect as those are truly righteous outfits you cited. Unfortunately, far too many "rights" organizations today are simply time-wasters (and by design, of course) and add to dissipating the donations of the concerned citizenry. There is, as you probably are aware, only one existing party today in the USA - the Davos Party. The American equation of 50,000 foundations + 35,000 lobbyists + 5 media-controlled corporations = our coporate fascist state (and no, it ain't an "empathetic fascism" as some nutjob recently mentioned -- sheeesh!).

I have done thousands of unpaid, volunteer hours of the years and observed that it has been pretty much for nothing. The super-rich control everything, and that which many aren't aware they control, that's the way the do even deeper control......

Re:You, Good Citizen, have my RESPECT (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297717)

Eh, it's like the story about the Very Low Tide. A man was walking along the beach during a very low tide, where thousands upon thousands of star fish were exposed and lay dying in the sun. He came upon a boy throwing the starfish back into the ocean. "Silly boy," he said, "You'll never save all the starfish!"

"Yeah," replied the boy picking up a starfish and tossing it back, "but I saved that one."

Re:exactly (1)

ndmking (1574801) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297909)

you seem very well spoken and have your ideas very thought out and thats admirable but using food not bombs (and i assume homes not jails is the same scene) as your superior and righteous soap box is a rough one to sell to me because when i worked with them they were nothing but a bunch of half there hippies and pc punks that could barely keep it together enough to stay sober thru the feedings. I mean feeding people is good sure but i always thought it was kinda like a band aid and the "people in charge" were not going solve anything. maybe at the higher "organizer" levels you saw something more. I know nothing about the IWW so maybe you have something there.

Re:exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28296445)

you really should study history..

And you both should study a little psychology. Reich would be a good start. Try to understand why people act so irrationally. And learn to talk nice. Nobody's insulting you. Why are you insulting them?

i am insulting him on purpose (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296535)

you assume my motivation is actually to help him

and so you should study a little psychology yourself: that the motivations of everyone on the intarwebs, nevermind civil society, would be the same facile and ridiculous goody two shoes "to serve and to help" is a whopping fallacy of an assumption on your part

mostly i'm just being self-serving: picking on an idiot for fun

which in a way, makes me an idiot myself

so see? i do know something of pscyhology: i'm the self-aware smug asshole ;-)


Re:Hmmm... (2, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294479)

We must certainly dispense with this notion that US interests somehow trump the rest of the world's nations' sovereignty. They have no more right to be world internet czars than they do to be world police. For what its worth, our national borders protect us from becoming them and that's something I, and other nationalists, appreciate.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294891)

Your comment is very confusing. What country do you live in? It's clearly not the USA, because our national borders certainly haven't prevented us from becoming the world police, a job to which we are highly unsuited.

Re:Hmmm... (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296025)

Are you sure that we aren't suited to being the world police? Our police state techniques are pretty damn good. We have a higher percentage of our population incarcerated or otherwise caught up in the penal system (parole and probation) than any other developed country. I'd say that when it comes to disenfranchising huge portions of the population, we're doing pretty darn well.

How do you prevent change in a political system? Strip the rights of everyone who runs afoul of it and might be inclined to change it.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296185)

We're well-suited to be the next world conquerors, but that's not who I want to be the world police. I want the police to help keep the peace, not to go to war on freedom.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296335)

Nah, we can't even conquer Iraq properly, much less the world. At best we can hope to be the world destabilizers. Our appetite for drugs and power has already given us a huge infrastructure to utilize for those purposes. Look at what a great job we've done in Central and South America. Hell, we had a direct hand in building the biggest "terrorist" menance to date, al Qaeda. The CIA and their friends at DIA, DEA and all the other ??A's seem to be damn good a destabilizing things.

If anyone should be the world police, I'm going to nominate the Dutch. They might not have the uber-paramilitary, population supressing tactics that Americans are proud of, but they do seem to be seriously nice people... and they speak a whole slew of languages. Of course the "problem" with having a bunch of well educated people doing police work is that they tend to ask too many questions. Policing takes a certain herd mentality, an "us against them" mindset that is the antithesis of a well rounded educational process.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296407)

Policing takes a certain herd mentality, an "us against them" mindset that is the antithesis of a well rounded educational process.

I would argue that a well-rounded educational process would accommodate those people who are always going to be part of the herd by giving them enough education to chew their cud, and thus be able to spend more effort on the other students.

It is a terrible tragedy that "special needs" students, some of whom can simply never achieve scholastically what other students are capable of, cost us orders of magnitude more per head than whiz kids who, with a little more encouragement, could do great things instead of being brought down towards the level of the herd.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Celeste R (1002377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295689)

It's not that we trump your sovereignty, it's the fact that you wanted a piece of the pie that we created (and controlled) in the first place.

Back then, it was simply a business matter. These days, it shouldn't be treated as such.

It needs to be treated like a political matter. You have your territory, and we have ours, just as you have your infrastructure in your country, and we have ours.

By the way, we aren't the world police if we haven't been acting as such. 3 generations ago, perhaps we did, but our current idea of having a bigger stick isn't about keeping the world's peace, it's about keeping internal peace, which other nations happen to depend on for a sense of their own internal peace.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294483)

Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?

That's a great idea, let's make the UN a real world government with the authority and ability to enforce laws. And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).

Re:Hmmm... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294633)

Maybe you don't get it. Without borders how can China and Cuba exist as anything separate from the rest of the world? You think the bums that run those places now would still have any power over anybody else?

Re:Hmmm... (1)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295719)

Without borders how can China and Cuba exist as anything separate from the rest of the world?

I always thought it might have something to do with having lots of tanks, bullets, and the ability to employ or force people to use them. You can declare borders illegal tomorrow but that won't stop groups from reimposing them. And in the absence of nations, who is going to stop them?

Re:Hmmm... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296105)

Guess you gotta pay the tank drivers to point their guns the other way. Look, this isn't going to happen by decree of some dictator any more than anti bias laws can do away with hate. But we have to recognize that the concept of borders is nothing more than animal territorialism. Then maybe the fences will fall by themselves. They are inhuman and inhumane. And considering that we are supposed to know better, it makes us actually worse than animals.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296415)

You have far more faith in humanity than I do. I suspect most people understand animal territorialism but they either agree with it or just don't care. If there is a finite resource, X percent will want to control it. Another X percent will go along because they benefit. And X percent of economists will write books justifying it.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296713)

It's not a matter of faith. It's matter of time, and letting nature do its thing. The day is young, and so are we. There's a whole universe out there. The limits are self made.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295071)

And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).

And USA and Britain for that matter; another two Nations with a far from flawless Human Rights record. Though if we really wanted point out the irony of the Human Rights Council not only are China, Cuba, USA and the UK on it but it also include; Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, Egypt and Pakistan (and others who I don't really know anything about but I am sure have their share of closeted skeletons).

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296159)

Sorry, but the USA is not currently one of the members of the Human Rights Council.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Funny)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294507)

Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?

I called Princess Peach, My Little Pony and The Care Bears and they're on it.

Consider it done.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294555)

I think Princess Peach might have a conflict of interest, you know being the princess of the Mushroom Kingdom and all....

Re:Hmmm... (2, Funny)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294997)

Actually if you are in power of a small kingdom, what better way to expand your power than spearheading a campaign to eliminate all other small power and rule as the supreme overlord.

I for one welcome our pink, floating overlord.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294559)

Say it brother! Say it loud! I've been getting nowhere with the idea for many years. I wish you better luck than I have. But the mafia will chase you to the ends of the earth to squash it if it looks like it has the remotest chance of taking hold. To me it would a great step towards acting like truly sentient beings, as opposed to the animals we act like now, pissing on trees to mark our territory.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28294635)

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28294787)

Nations are a way of not putting all our eggs in one basket. One world also means one set of laws, one set of ideals, one economy. If that fails, we're all screwed, not just the people in one failed country.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28294961)

Damn moderators are insulting you with the "Funny" mod. They're saying, "Haha, Pull the other one." Eh, conditioned reflex.

Arrogant (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294339)

You might as well say that if China appointed a cyber security "czar" that person should / would be the WORLD czar, too.

They could probably make a better claim to the WORLD position (after all, it's not like the WORLD series - where only americans take part), having as they do, the great population size and a lot more cyber security already in place.

But then again, I suppose Cringely is pandering to an audience, who just want to be told that they're (still) king of the world - no matter what the reality is.

Using Chrysler and G.M. as an example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28294423)

Outsource cyber warfare department TO China and avoid
all the complications.

Yours In Socialism,
K. Trout

This makes perfect sence. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294349)

It is really simple, no one country owns the internet and therefore no one country can stand alone in cyber warfare. I do think that it will take a long time to get past the politics around it being related to any government.

The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294453)

None of the widely used operating systems out there is secure. Until we embrace microkernels which have been proven to be secure, along with default usage of the object capability model, we'll never be safe.

It's possible to secure a computer to withstand the full force of the internet, even with normal users... but not with the code we have now.

Tannenbaum is right about microkernels... and Linus has reached the wrong conclusion.

Re:The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294577)

So? You and Cringely are still thinking in brick and morter terms. If you bomb a factory, it takes a while to rebuild. With a warm standby, you can rebuild a server in minutes. Easier to take down, yes, but also easier to put back up somewhere else. (If you plan ahead)

Re:The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes (2, Funny)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295039)

"The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes"

No no no. It's a series of tubes, powered by hampsters running in rotating wheels. You're right about these microkernels you speak of--we must "embrace" them, for they are the food that power the hampsters. With the power of the microkernals, these super hampsters can then secure the internets from "enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material," and soon the internet will become a big truck that you can dump anything on.

A few ways... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294497)

There are a few ways any country can "win" in a cyber-war. For one the wires can be cut, I remember a year or two ago a lot of undersea cables were cut by anchors leaving people with no internet. If you really want to get a country off of the internet, theres a lot more ways of doing it than with DoS attacks. What we really need is a totally global net. One where you can't tell which country the IP is from, one without government control. Its too hard to do this with the current net, but a second internet could easily be born with all these things in place.

W00t 5fp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28294553)

in a head spiining

Wait... (1)

jshackles (957031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294603)

... is there really a cyber WAR going on? Are people dying? No? Then I don't want to hear about it.

Re:Wait... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296155)

Considering how much we depend on computers these days for increasingly vital stuff (read: power, water, hospital/medical records, etc...), people could very well die in a cyber war from the collateral damage if nothing else.

Countries? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294637)

Internet isnt about geographical borders, and treating it like it is definately will cause collateral damage. So far most of internet based attacks were done by individuals or groups of individuals not related with government (at least, not directly). Even If we put a complex (?) criminal organization instead of a single person behind the biggest botnets, we would not be speaking about countries. And even if countries try to get a cyberarmy, probably the biggest talents (and so threats) will want to be out of there.

Probably a better example could be spam. Some administrators take as policy ban entire countries because too much spam coming from there. You think could be some collateral victims in that approach if made generic? (hint, most of the spam is still generated in US).

The ways things are going (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294661)

As disturbing as it is to me, that is the way things seem to be going. "World" or "International" is a word being thrown around at the government level for a long time now. Especially since countries are slowly becoming more and more combined in terms of borders (look at the European Union, and the proposed North American Union and Asian Union). While I don't agree or think these "unions" are great ideas, having the position of the cyber security "czar" be a kind of international position would sorta make sense...

I do nit envy whoever gets that position though, since trying to even audit network information, or anything to do with an overseas country is a real pain. A company I worked for had elements in Argentina as well as India (mostly outsourcing of support calls for India) and some of the things were obnoxious that had to be done to audit security and network policies.

Re:The ways things are going (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295403)

It's just going to outline the way things are slowly proceeding:

ideas that are cultural are being blended. USA was the melting pot, the world is becoming the melting pot. What this means is that things such a religions, values that are specific to a culture, are all going to have to be thrown out. Giant culture shock, but that is the way that it goes.

Re:North American Union (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295453)

Proposed by who? It isn't something I have seen getting any serious political attention, so talking about it as if it is a serious possibility is on the level with talking about the proposed Interplanetary Union.

Re:North American Union (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297979)

Actually, Ex-president Bush started the ball rolling on the NAU (North American Union). And it was covered in the media a little back when it was first made light of, but has since been swept under the rug. Can see a news segment here []

As for the Asian Union, it has been proposed on many different levels inside of Japanese and other smaller asian countries governments but no official announcement or endorsement of it has been made. But the NAU is most likely still in the works.

Let's be serious here (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294727)

As virtual as the Intertubez are, there still IS a physical layer. You could have the L33t-est of hackers in Albania, but that's not going to mean a damned thing when a Super Power decides to start surgical strikes on your infrastructure.

I propose the opposite... (2, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294769)

I'm tired of the resources of my nation being used to protect the world. I would really rather see our Cyber Czar take the opposite approach:

Secure our stuff, and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems in the way they best see fit.

This would require a moderate paradigm shift, to be sure, for example:

1) US-based corps that choose to outsource will need to factor this into their costs. Perhaps a US-based callcenter, backed by our security efforts, would be a better investment.

2) The original concept of the 'net would need to be reinstated - where if one or many nodes go down, the bulk of it remains functional.

3) Vendors inside the US would need to be encouraged to step it up and provide equivalent IT products to those available overseas. ...and so on, and so on...

I propose we look at the US in much the way any Security Pro looks at his sponsoring company. I can't be concerned with securing everyone on my same internet subnet. That's their deal. I wouldn't propose to use services and resources on those (presumably unsecured) nodes. Only my own IP's are my concern. The opposite is insanity, and is simply not in the best interests of those paying my paycheck. Same for our government, IMHO.

Likewise, where exactly in the Constitution is 'policing Pakistan's internet' supported? Are we still talking about the Commerce Clause? Because at some point it is going to logically fail. You can't just keep expanding power without putting paper behind it, unless we're ready to scrap the whole notion of a common set of national guidelines for what our government should and should not be.

Re:I propose the opposite... (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296019)

'I'm tired of the resources of my nation being used to protect the world.'

Don't worry, they're not being so used.

Re:I propose the opposite... (1)

Celeste R (1002377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296581)

Any international policing should, by default, be relegated to the world of international politics, which is a very heterogeneous group.

Any internal policing could, even if we don't want it, be relegated to the dept of Homeland Security (which is oh so wonderful).

Either way, approaching it by appointing a cyberwarfare czar is the wrong way to go; you're just asking for backlash. I would support a cyber-political appointment though, because it stresses the idea of peace before war.

Cyber Warfare (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294915)

If you haven't seen Die Hard IV: Revenge of the Nerds [] , you should. It's a great nerd movie (at least, the unrated version is, the theatrical release was more like a censored for TV version).

Almost all the characters except John McClain are nerds. "Freddy", AKA "W4rlock", is the stereotypical uber-nerd, living in his mom's basement. In the movie, America's infrastructure is attacked programatticaly. As McClain and Farrell (a former black hat who has turned white hat) are flying the helicoppter over the darkened city (the bad guys have killed all the electricity) trying to find w4rlock, McClain asks him how they're going to find his house. "Easy, it'll be the one with the lights on".

The premise of the movie is a "fire sale" - everything must go. The bad guys turn all the traffic lights green, causing massive traffic accidents, then have the stock market boards show losses in all stocks, causing wall street panic, kill the electricity, etc.

It's great mindless fun about cyber-warfare. From the wikipedia article about the film []

The film's plot is based on an earlier script entitled by David Marconi, screenwriter of Enemy of the State.[9] Using a Wired article entitled "A Farewell to Arms"[2] by John Carlin, Marconi crafted a screenplay about a cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S.[10] The attack procedure is known as a "fire sale," depicting a three-stage coordinated attack on a country's transportation, telecommunications, financial, and utilities infrastructure systems. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the project was stalled, only to be resurrected several years later and rewritten into Live Free or Die Hard by Doug Richardson and eventually by Mark Bomback.[11]

Willis said in 2005 that the film would be called Die Hard 4.0, as it revolves around computers and cyber-terrorism. IGN later reported the film was to be called Die Hard: Reset instead.[12] 20th Century Fox later announced the title as Live Free or Die Hard and set a release date of June 29, 2007 with filming to begin in September 2006.[13][14] The title is based on the state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die", which is attributed to a quote from General John Stark. International trailers use the Die Hard 4.0 title,[15] as the film was released outside North America with that title. Early into the DVD commentary for the film, both Wiseman and Willis note a preference for Die Hard 4.0, and subtly mock the Live Free or Die Hard title.[16]

Bangladesh doesn't code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28294925)

Just to clear, Bangladesh practically doesn't do any coding [if you consider scale]. On the other hand, poster joking mentioned Bangladesh

After a real, 'hot' cyberwar... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28294967) will long for bullets, bombs, and nukes.

It will be nasty beyond measure. Worse than anything save nukes.

We need to accept this, and prepare for the inevitable.

Re:After a real, 'hot' cyberwar... (1)

keatonguy (1001680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296835)

You're going to have to elaborate on that for me. I really can't see how cyberwarfare could produce the same horrifying results as a nuclear detonation in a populated area, let alone WORSE.

Idiots. Outsourcing, offshoring etc irrelevant (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295033)

Who would win in any given matchup are underground groups. not any countries. no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able hackers of underground scenes. this has been the case all along. us, china, russia, any of them has been hacked by these people wantonly, at will. neither this will change with applicatio of a 'cybersecurity tzar' or any such absurd official, or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of men in any country's 'cyberwarfare unit'.

hacking, cracking, infiltration, security et al - these all require huge talent in their highest levels (im not talking about phishing or script kiddying), and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious, unruly minds of any society. good luck to you in recruiting those to any government's 'cybersecurity team'. if one thing is in common in these types, its their mutual hatred of any kind of establishment.

am i one of them ? no. but i can appreciate talent, and i can see cold hard truth as it is.

Re:Idiots. Outsourcing, offshoring etc irrelevant (1)

Celeste R (1002377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296499)

Those underground groups are still subject to their nation's laws.

Accountability is there, as well as responsibility.

Re:Idiots. Outsourcing, offshoring etc irrelevant (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296583)

Who would win in any given matchup are lowly microbes and viruses (the kind that attack people). Not any countries. no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able microbes. This has been the case all along. US, China, Russia, any of them has been attacked by these germs wantonly, at will. Neither this will change with application of a 'center for disease prevention' or any such absurd officialdom, or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of scientists in any country's 'doctor unit'.

Attacking, afflicting, infecting, health et. al. - these all require huge talent in their highest levels (I'm not talking about colds or flus), and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious, unruly bugs of any society. Good luck to you in recruiting those to any government's 'health team'. If one thing is in common in these types, it's their mutual hatred of any kind of medicine.

Am I one of them? No, but I can appreciate talent, and I can see cold hard truth as it is.

There, now we have no need to spend anything on health care since in the end, we're all dead. In fact, your argument can be used to deny spending any kind of money and effort on any of society's ills, very effective. I salute you. I also took the liberty of using capitalization and punctuation, I find it helps in reading.

The hell ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295065)

why the HELL are countries connecting their sensitive networks and data to internet ANYWAY ? it doesnt take millions of bucks and hundreds of it people and a 'cybersecurity tzar' to realize that ANYthing sensitive that is connected to internet is hackable, REGARDLESS of you outsource, offshore, implement hard, tight, restrictive internet controls and protocols, or track every move of every goddamn person on the internet or not.


Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles? (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295283)

The man is a tremendous douche who always writes ridiculous articles so that people get their dander up and drive traffic. He's nothing more than a journo-troll.

And this whole cyber-crap thing misses the mark. First off, nix the cyber. Nothing makes you sound less knowledgeable than using cyber when talking about computers. Second off, computer warfare is just another way of fucking with the enemy's infrastructure. If anything, you could classify it a subset of cold warfare. That's anything that's indirect, doesn't involve the acting killing of others, but is a true struggle between nations. Economic warfare is the usual manifestation with trade wars, resource wars, and political maneuvering. It's not some crazy new thing that's all black leather and sexy computer chicks.

Did you steal info from a poorly-secured computer system? Great, that's just digital espionage. You could have sent a guy in with a camera to photograph stuff 30 years ago but you did it with a computer now. Same idea, different tools. Did you crash his telcom system? Great. Could have been done with a saboteur 30 years ago (generally poor luck with that sort of thing) but you managed it from your desk. Excellent.

While there will always be security holes in software, most of this exposure can be mitigated against with simple, sensible procedures. The thing we tend to forget is real life ain't like Hollywood. It may be cool in Chuck to think that a guy with a supercomputer armband can hijack a Predator whenever he feels like it but that's not reality. It may be cool to think that a hacker could pick any target he wants and break in but it's usually more a matter of running scripts and finding holes where you can get them, very luck of the draw.

When it comes to infrastructure attacks, I'm far less concerned with computer attacks. Throughout this country, we have a number of single points of failure that would be difficult to replace. Any civil engineer could draw up a hitlist in five minutes far more knowledgeable than I'm going to suggest here.

1. Long-haul transmission lines. It wouldn't take that much explosive to bring a tower down and they're often running through isolated areas. Knock a few towers down, then we're stuck spending billions to guard the rest.

2. While everyone is preoccupied with towers, hit the ...crap, I'm forgetting the name. My memory is wonky here but there's some expensive stuff used in electrical distribution that has very long lead times for ordering replacements. Blow up one of these, it could be a year before the new one arrives.

3. While everyone is preoccupied with that, send a few Lee Malvo teams to randomly snipe people around the country. Doesn't matter that the average commuter is ten times more likely to die in a crash that day than get sniped, everyone will panic.

4. While everyone is preoccupied with snipers, one of the other soft targets can be hit. Seriously, one electrical line failing took out New York. Making that happen again would have to be easier than plots like blowing up tanker trucks in the tunnels.

By all means, let's protect the computers but it's attacks like I've outlined above that I think would prove far more deadly. Of course, if I were the terrorist, I'd rather fart around with computer attacks from the safety of my cave than risk entering the target country but that's just me. I think people should be ridiculed for their political views, not killed. I'd make a lousy terrorist.

Re:Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28296393)

Well, they are better than what's modded up here today.

Re:Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296547)

One of the advantages of cyberwar is the ease of scale. While sending a few dozen spooks in to photo documents was a major undertaking in the 60s-70s, today you can mount a massive assault on data networks with very little in the way of hard resources. And one clever guy can do it all. Botnets give you millions of spooks.

And data is a real thing, to be dealt with. Just as a sniper would seed fear and chaos, so also either downing major banking sites or even threatening to hijack nees/finance/government sites would cause similar panic. The recent posting that T-Mobile's data was exposed caused a noticeable amount of concern, and probably increased call volume to their support desks, as well as distracted their security teams. Add to this several other warnings to other industries, and then everyone else is checking their systems. Good time to unleash the new and unknown attack, for me, as everyone starts by checking the known exploits.

Everything you would do with a gun or a bomb is just so much more interesting to prevent, detect, and mitigate when done in data. It's really nasty.

ps - is it SCADA systems you're thinking of for power distribution? Needless to say, connecting SCADA to the Internet is begging on your knees to be attacked, and pwned. Just not acceptable, and it is happening.

Re:Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles? (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296867)

There are very many easy-to-destroy terrorist targets all over the USA which would kill many people or cripple infrastructure for long periods of time. The fact that this doesn't happen continually is a testament to just how few real terrorists there are out there.

minus 1, Trol7) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28295317)

dead. I7 is a dead

Politics (1)

Celeste R (1002377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28295533)

What we've already observed is the fact that cyber-warfare is a very real reality. Sure, it hasn't become a problem for the lowest common denominator, but there is no un-crossing that line, and no amount of pretending can make that potential threat go away. We can prevent cyber-warfare, or we can promote it.

One of the simplest ways to promote it is to treat it like "anything goes". Rules (including social rules!) have to apply; and politics has shown us a way. Treaties, alliances, and all that good stuff -have- to happen, or it'll be a dog eat dog world (just imagine... another country trashing the NYSE - wouldn't that be a problem)

Politics isn't all bad. It brings us a lot of the sense of safety we tend to take for granted. We can say that we actually trust someone, and we don't have to look over our shoulder at them so much. Those boundaries have made economic and national interests a reality.

Cyberspace can be relegated to a position where it's just a national asset. However, it must be stressed that it's also a national asset that can hurt us just as much as it can help us, and where the boundaries exist is becoming more and more blurred. One country can (very easily) do nefarious things with another country's connection to the internet.

In the advent of a high-tech war (not a low-tech guerrilla warfare), we're at a disadvantage. We have the most to lose, because so much of our assets depend on the Internet Backbone. Can you imagine a NYSE without an internet to connect it to places? It would mean simultaneous economic woes as well as mass confusion and panic.

The very design of the internet works against us. Right now, the entire backbone of the internet is not one that lends itself easily to politics. Right now, it's a sort of uber-organization, but we can't exactly just depend on it to be around forever without a backup plan, can we? It simply has to be politicized for it to exist in the long run. Net neutrality provides a framework where it can happen, and where things can become heterogeneous (and independent) in a peaceful manner.

The next step up from Net Neutrality is to draw up equivalents of treaties, which would allow everyone a chance to protect their (business or national) interests. After all, cyberspace is not just an asset, it's a territory where things can happen. Those treaties will mostly fall along the lines of political boundaries.

Of course, a treaty has no weight without a penalty attached to its violation. Even if that penalty is very simple (i.e. you just hacked us, so you can't have a connection to us any more).

We're talking about the dawn of a new age, where we're going to be hiring politicians to talk computer lingo. This -has- to be handled with care, and with all of the expertise that is relevant to politics, for it to not blow up in our faces. If we go about this the wrong way, it could lead to open warfare, which is why we need the right approach.

By the way, the last thing I want as the cyberwarfare czar is a RIAA lawyer... because they'll demand things of other nations that would blow up in our face(s)... and they already extort the average Joe. They've already got into many other places of the gov't.

Wall Street downtime (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28296577)

What worries me is an attack that takes Wall Street down for three weeks. When it comes back up, the US will no longer be the financial center of the world. Singapore, Beijing, and Dubai will have taken up the load.

That wasn't possible in 2001, by the way; the other trading centers didn't have the capacity or the capital backing. Now they do.

Then again, Beijing is going to displace New York within a decade anyway. The US is now a debtor nation, and trading moves away from debtor nations.

pl05 4, Troll) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28297523)

Giving the keys to anyone (2, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297595)

This is the logical outcome of outsourcing technology. In the USA, we have given our expertise away. After energy shortages, I would have to assess this as THE security risk for us. We won the first Iraq war on our technology. We will lose the next one on our technology, wielded by others. And of course it was all done to make profits look good for the next quarter so some managerial technopeasant could get their bonus. Indirectly, we were sold out by Wall Street MBAs and a business culture that thinks money is *magic*, and damn the consequences.

Legalities? (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28297855)

Of course the first time someone challenges one of these so called "czars" in court about having no oversight from the Legislative or Judicial branches they will all be ruled Unconstitutional. Which is the correct ruling.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?