Beta
×

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!

Meet the Military's Cyber-Security Forces

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the can't-wait-to-see-the-ad-campaign dept.

Government 148

destinyland writes "How exactly would the military fight a cyber war? In August 2009, the U.S. Air Force activated its new cyberspace combat unit, the 24th Air Force, to 'provide combat-ready forces trained and equipped to conduct sustained cyber operations.' It's commanded by former Minuteman missile and satellite-jamming specialist Major General Richard Webber. (And under his command are two wings, the 688th Information Operations Wing and the 67th Network Warfare Wing, plus a combat communications units.) Meanwhile, to counter the threat of cyber warfare, DARPA is still deploying the National Cyber Range, a test bed of networked computers to test countermeasures against 'cyberwar.' (According to one report, it provides 'a virtual network world — to be populated by mirror computers and inhabited by myriad software sim-people "replicants," and used as a firing range in which to develop the art of cyber warfare.') The Obama administration has even added a military cybersecurity coordinator to the National Security team."

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

Stop saying cyber (3, Insightful)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935240)

That word bugs the hell out of me. It's like watching a "hacker" in the movies waving around a power glove while a graphic of a virus attacks things. And you used it 9 times in that summary. Just stop it.

Re:Stop saying cyber (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935322)

Especially since cyber, is also a verb and abbreviation of cyber sex.

GTG, Major General Richard Webber is trying to cyber me.

Re:Stop saying cyber (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935418)

That explains the need to populate the cyber test range with virtual people... maybe I should reconsider and join the Air Force after all.

Re:Stop saying cyber (2, Interesting)

Orga (1720130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935938)

2013: Cyber Unit disbanded after all virtual sims found to be male.

Re:Stop saying cyber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30935392)

It's the right prefix to use, why does it bother you so much?

Re:Stop saying cyber (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935488)

Oh, come on, the government needs some sort of iBranding. And if it's that time of the month, they can just get an iPad.

Re:Stop saying cyber (0, Troll)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935654)

I'm a cyborg, [slashdot.org] you insensitive clod!

ok terminator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30937070)

i'll stop I can see it bothers u when the other kids call u a cyborg rather than a mechanical replicant.

Re:Stop saying cyber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939026)

That word bugs the hell out of me. It's like watching a "hacker" in the movies waving around a power glove while a graphic of a virus attacks things. And you used it 9 times in that summary. Just stop it.

cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber cyber.... there that about does it

Same as anyone else (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935246)

How exactly would the military fight a cyber war?

Post a carefully worded call to arms on 4chan.

Re:Same as anyone else (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935378)

4chan is not your personal army.

Re:Same as anyone else (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935728)

4chan is not your personal army

No, it's more like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. As Hannibal showed the Romans elephants may not consider themselves a part of your army, but once you point them in the right direction they can still get the job done.

Re:Same as anyone else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30935918)

But it wouldn't be "personal" if it were from a country now would it?

Re:Same as anyone else (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936060)

(That's just the line most 4channers will tell you if you ask them to do something)

Re:Same as anyone else (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935444)

Or just post their web site posted to the front page of /..

Related link that is not down (1)

Meshach (578918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935344)

Link that is not down. [thenewnewinternet.com]

American Homeland Defense Firewall? (4, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935422)

So are they now going to propose a Homeland Defense Firewall, to protect and defend american business and citizens against foreign cyber attacks? Or will they be "simply monitoring" the routers coming in and out of the country? I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, no privacy invasions, no espionage will occur over the monitoring channels. Only criminal and terrorist investigation. And even then, only with a warrant. Of course we can be assured of that. Of course you can trust the military to always defend Americans and respect American law and use of decency. Of course. We all agree on that.

Paranoid much? (3, Funny)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935770)

Actually, I wouldn't expect that from them at all. The military has no real interest in spying on the civilian population. Perhaps the FBI, CIA, or NSA might do the stuff you were spouting off about, but the military is going to be focused on conducting electronic and cyber warfare, i.e. destroying the enemy's electronic infrastructure and protecting our military's infrastructure.

if you want to be hysterically paranoid, at least do it about the right things...

Re:Paranoid much? (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936028)

"..the FBI, CIA, or NSA does the stuff you were spouting off about.." FTFY.

It is fairly well-known that the NSA has been listening in since 9/11; even former NSA analysts have come forward to voice their concerns about listening in on the conversations of normal American citizens.

Re:Paranoid much? (1)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936312)

"..the FBI, CIA, or NSA does the stuff you were spouting off about.." FTFY.

It is fairly well-known that the NSA has been listening in since 9/11

The CIA/NSA has been listening in since the 70s or even the 60s -- they are not allowed to spy domestically (even if they do), but they are allowed to monitor all cross-border voice and data traffic - and they've been doing so for a long time (just google for Echelon).

Re:Paranoid much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30937656)

They just outsource it to the Brits, who share the information with them. And the Australians.

Re:Paranoid much? (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936316)

Listen yes, from Non-US locations. Perfectly legal. Look up Echelon. At least (right now) the Government isn't proposing using remote spy drones to monitor the population like has been proposed in the UK.

"normal" citizens? Not hardly, only targeted calls from people who might be terrorists or helping terrorists and most of that international calls. I don't think even the NSA has the compute power to monitor every landline, cell, VOIP call in the USA. They also need good probable cause, Ahmed's call back home to check on his lapis mine in Afghanistan isn't going to get him monitored.

If they were really do monitor convo's by everyday citizens as you said then prosecutors for ciriminal cases like murder, rape, etc. should also be get those transcripts to put the criminal away. And wow, the good that data could do in civil cases like divorce. I can just see the divorce lawyer getting those transcripts of the calls to your girlfriend or prostitute..slam dunk divorce and she gets everything.

Re:Paranoid much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939752)

She gets everything no matter what. This is not a men's country. Ofcourse, you (even though you are a man) are opposed to the existance of countries who's laws and social systems are advantagious to men. Few of such countries exist any more (just wikipedia the marraige age for females: almost everything is 18 or 21: in line with feminist demands)

Wrong much? (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936488)

Actually, I wouldn't expect that from them at all. The military has no real interest in spying on the civilian population. Perhaps the FBI, CIA, or NSA might do the stuff you were spouting off about, but the military is going to be focused on conducting electronic and cyber warfare, i.e. destroying the enemy's electronic infrastructure and protecting our military's infrastructure.

if you want to be hysterically paranoid, at least do it about the right things...

You're calling someone paranoid by because they aren't correctly identifying which part of the government is spying on them illegally? That's a new one.

However, you'd be wrong anyway.

In late 2008 the U.S Army Reserve spied on peaceful protests against the Federal Reserve.
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve1.jpg [infowars.com]
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve2.jpg [infowars.com]
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve3.jpg [infowars.com]

In 2005, NBC obtained a secret 400-page Defense Department document listing more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country related to peaceful anti-war demonstrations. “The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups,” NBC reported. [msn.com]

In the wake of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon established the Counterintelligence Field Activity. CIFA illegally conducted broad domestic operations that targeted antiwar and other dissident domestic groups and logged these in the TALON database. After the unit received negative publicity, the Pentagon’s senior intelligence official, James R. Clapper, recommended to Sec. Def. Gates that the counterintelligence field office be dismantled and that some of its operations be placed under the authority of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Please be more informed before you speak. Thanks.

Re:Wrong much? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938916)

In late 2008 the U.S Army Reserve spied on peaceful protests against the Federal Reserve.
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve1.jpg [infowars.com] [infowars.com]
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve2.jpg [infowars.com] [infowars.com]
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve3.jpg [infowars.com] [infowars.com]

You call THAT spying??

Look, do yourself a favor:

1. Stop reading infowars.
2. Think for yourself instead of swallowing every half baked conspiracy theory you come across.

There's enough real scary stuff going on in the world - you don't need to make up crazy shit in order to feel even more threatened.

Re:Wrong much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939106)

I don't see anything in the first three documents you linked to about "secret spying." I see the US military worried about what these people might do, and preparing their personnel for the proper response (i.e. "do not relatiate") to minimize PR issues. The Army was worried that their own guys might fuck up and hurt someone and wanted to make sure they were aware of the upcoming protests and prepared to refer to local law enforcement if things got out of control.

Re:Paranoid much? (1)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936556)

Perhaps the FBI, CIA, or NSA might do the stuff you were spouting off about

Speaking of the NSA. Why do we need a Cybercommand when all of its functions look like what the NSA is supposed to be doing?

Re:Paranoid much? (1)

chaos579 (1645021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938098)

because they want it to appear that the government is actually doing its job CORRECTLY

Re:American Homeland Defense Firewall? (2, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935910)

Wait, so the army trains on how to fight with enormously destructive weapons, and how to interrogate and search people efficiently, but now that they're learning how to conduct warfare on some copper and fiber wires you're scared?

Re:American Homeland Defense Firewall? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936196)

They might put up some defenses for military systems, but they wouldn't be monitoring it. They're job is to conduct Cyber Warfare.

How often do you see the -Military- performing investigations on US Soil?

War and espionage are on a blurry line but you can rest assured the Armed forces are in it for the War. The FBI will do domestic cases and the CIA Will try to keep up to date on wold cyber affairs.

Re:American Homeland Defense Firewall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30937008)

The Chinese are working on ways to shut down C4ISR between commanders and troops/ships without having to shoot down satellites. That is what this group is trying to defend against.

Encryption for the masses. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936226)

Maybe this will be the kicker needed to get businesses and such to really use encryption in their Internet traffic.

Important notice (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935442)

Any comments in this story will be monitored by the 24th Air Force for suspicious activity. Suspicious activity includes disclosing the activities of ... ow! hey! don't taze me ... NO CARRIER

Re:Important notice (2, Funny)

MXPS (1091249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935984)

Let's just hope that they don't get mod points or we are all finished.

Airforce? (4, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935482)

*jumps into flame suit *

Or would that now be called the Chairforce?

Re:Airforce? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30935572)

You're about 10 years late on that joke.

Re:Airforce? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30935716)

It's an oldie but goodie.

Re:Airforce? (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936152)

Just because it started, or you first heard it, ten years ago doesn't mean it isn't still accurate and hence funny.

Not that they haven't been trying to eliminate from the service those members that fit the stereotype. In fact their campaign against people that didn't look dashing in their rediculous uniforms was a major contributor to me not re-enlisting. Pretty much the only thing I really miss about the military was the prices of groceries at the Commisary.

Re:Airforce? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936238)

They've always been the Chair Force. Or the Hair Force. Or Air Farce. Take your pick.

Cyberwarfare? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935556)

to be populated by mirror computers and inhabited by myriad software sim-people 'replicants,' and used as a firing range in which to develop the art of cyber warfare.")

Oh, yeah, I remember these guys. We invited the general to come and post on slashdot a few years back. They never did come up with a good answer to how they can recruit the necessary talent when the aforementioned is generally anti-authoritarian. Hacking, or "cyberwarfare", or whatever you want to call it, all requires a high degree of creativity combined with the ability to see patterns in seemingly random information. Both of these skillsets are a rarity in the general population -- most people are linear sequential thinkers, which means they can't start one task without stopping another. Everything about this theatre is contrary to conventional military discipline.

This is an organization that still believes that only men should be in their little club, gays are bad, and if you're over 30 you're too old. Maybe that works well when you're comparing gun sizes, but in this theatre the groups they're excluding have exactly the human resources such an operation needs: Women are generally able to multitask and see the "big picture" easier than men, gays stereotypically gravitate towards creative endeavors (theatre, graphic design, etc.), and the over 30 crowd has exactly the kind of in-depth understanding of the technology and experience necessary to use it that a bunch of twenty-somethings just can't match, no matter how good the training.

They're putting themselves at a huge handicap -- and they can't afford to do that. Especially when China has more honor students than we have students in whole. They can afford to be prejudiced. They can afford to throw a million people over a cliff to fund public works projects. Meanwhile, our antiquidated notions of what a soldier is puts us at a substantial risk of being obliterated in the global theatre.

Sad. Where's an angry four star general when you need one?

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30936038)

My Dad (age 57) was hired by the NSA at age 52 (MS Comp Sci - Information Assurance). He's now a GS15 and did a year-long stint in the White House OSTP (inter-agency tour). He's heavily involved with defense/threat assessment and is getting ready to go to the "Dark Side" (offense).

He did a ton of drugs in college (35 years ago). He pirates software (now). Somehow he got hired and is moving up the ladder nicely.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30936264)

I did not realize President Obama had interns in his office after the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Are you tell us your daddy (intern) was pleasuring the POTUS in the Oval Office preceding his rapid movement up the ladder?

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30937950)

Um, yeah, interns are usually called "Senior Policy Advisers", right?

Ass.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30936274)

Bitter much? You certainly did unload a pile of rubbish there, feel any better? Linear sequential thinkers? Patterns in seemingly random information? Over 30 too old? Total horseshit, you don't know what you're talking about.

How do you recruit techies for the Military? Easy, you train them. As the various service academies have been doing for several years now. And you can come down from your high horse, technical skills are not all that rare in the general population. You may think you are some kind of genius, but in reality you are just an anti-social nerd with a superiority complex.

Discipline and authority are not anathema to hacking or technical ability.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938450)

Bitter much? You certainly did unload a pile of rubbish there, feel any better? Linear sequential thinkers? Patterns in seemingly random information? Over 30 too old? Total horseshit, you don't know what you're talking about.

Swearing makes you look immature.

You may think you are some kind of genius, but in reality you are just an anti-social nerd with a superiority complex.

Actually, I am some kind of genius, as proven by neuropsych testing. My lowest IQ score was 136. It can't be capped, however, because I have severe ADHD which (if you look it up) makes finding the ceiling difficult. I have tested a higher in the past. As to the rest, that's subjective, but as part of my evil overlord training I can assure you that I have been evaluated by a competent psychologist and been treated for any conditions or unusual phobias which could be potentially harmful.

Discipline and authority are not anathema to hacking or technical ability.

I think you meant to say 'respecting authority', and that's only true to a point: People with high general intelligence and hacking/technical ability tend to not respect authority simply because of title or position. Respect is earned in this field, not given.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939626)

Swearing makes you look immature.

Ad Hominems make you look immature. Swearing shows a lack of regard for standard social behavior.

Actually, I am some kind of genius, as proven by neuropsych testing. My lowest IQ score was 136. It can't be capped, however, because I have severe ADHD which (if you look it up) makes finding the ceiling difficult. I have tested a higher in the past. As to the rest, that's subjective, but as part of my evil overlord training I can assure you that I have been evaluated by a competent psychologist and been treated for any conditions or unusual phobias which could be potentially harmful.

Sorry, that doesn't even make it into the conventional genius category, so no, you are not some kind of genius. 136 is about a 1 in 80 rarity. There are likely more than 6 million US citizens and hundreds of millions of people in the world that are as smart or smarter than you.

I think you meant to say 'respecting authority', and that's only true to a point: People with high general intelligence and hacking/technical ability tend to not respect authority simply because of title or position. Respect is earned in this field, not given.

And what, exactly, you would know about earning position in the Military? Nothing. Rank is not handed out like candy in the Military. The sloth, unmotivated, disorganized, incompetent, and/or unintelligent do not get promoted into positions of authority in the Military. People with high general intelligence and technical ability are very common within the Military... in the higher ranks where they earned their position.

You speak of the intelligent and anti-social. This is a small percentage of the intelligent people in the world. Authority can be earned in many ways, and not just purely by intellectual means.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936308)

I walked into the Navy recruiter about a year ago, and asked him what I could in the Navy with a degrees in computer sciences and statistics. I am also physically-fit and have a high GPA. The officer (not enlisted) basically told me "not a goddamn thing, try the Army". The Army guy was the typical pushy recruiter; he told me to enlist and try for OCS (I'd probably end up on a convoy in Afghanistan).

I disagree with what you said about gays and women in the military; recent statistics suggest that 33% percent of female veterans have been raped, and 70% experienced some form of sexual harassment. As for gays being "more creative", that is a stereotype. Furthermore "hacking" is not really a creative endeavor in the artistic sense, it is more analytical and methodological. The best hackers are human compilers (i.e. understand how C code may be exploited), and have encyclopedic knowledge of security. I agree that age shouldn't matter for people with a high degree of technical skills (if under 50).

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937030)

I walked into the Navy recruiter about a year ago, and asked him what I could in the Navy with a degrees in computer sciences and statistics. I am also physically-fit and have a high GPA.

It begs the question of what you're doing on slashdot then, but I digress...

The officer (not enlisted) basically told me "not a goddamn thing, try the Army".

Not to say your experience was wrong, but it's entirely possible the guy was just a dick and you should speak to a different recuirter. They aren't carbon-copies of each other.

I disagree with what you said about gays and women in the military; recent statistics suggest that 33% percent of female veterans have been raped, and 70% experienced some form of sexual harassment.

And that has what. exactly. to do with their ability to do the job? That is a discipline problem, best solved by walking them down a long row of prison cells, and then having the guard loudly say "So you're the rapist, eh?" and then taking a long break.

As for gays being "more creative", that is a stereotype.

Yes, yes it is. And stereotypes also usually contain at least a grain of truth. Let me help your argument out a bit: You'd be better off arguing the null hypothesis, because there isn't strong evidence one way or the other. I just like throwing that in there because I'm rather pissy about not having been able to apply (I tried). Hey, at least I'm honest! But it's a moot point; the truth is we can't afford to judge people on anything but their ability to do the job -- we're greatly outnumbered. I just hope that when this is realized, the 3-7% of the population they're excluding will be considered. And just to make sure they register my opinion on the matter.... president, bomb, praise allah, airplane, umm... double top secret echelon network of fabulously packet sniffed intelligence!!! (xoxoxo Agent Smith!)

The best hackers are human compilers (i.e. understand how C code may be exploited), and have encyclopedic knowledge of security.

The best hackers often have interests outside of computers for which they are more than merely competent. Hackers, and I mean the old school kind, seem to absorb knowledge like a sponge. They aren't necessary intelligent (though it helps). It's this soaking up of large amounts of information coupled with a creative impulse that defines the hacker mindset. In fact... you don't have to even know what C is to be a hacker. It's a mindset, not a skillset.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

Simulant (528590) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936474)

"They never did come up with a good answer to how they can recruit the necessary talent when the aforementioned is generally anti-authoritarian."

Not only that, but I've been in MD for a year now and every day I see job postings for "Linux Sys Admin with active full scope poly clearances" and I keep wondering where the hell they expect to find them. I mean it's one thing to find a good Linux sys admin but finding one with an active clearance? If you do find one you'd just be stealing them from some other agency/contractor.

NSA is ramping up a cyber security force at Ft. Meade.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937410)

Not only that, but I've been in MD for a year now and every day I see job postings for "Linux Sys Admin with active full scope poly clearances" and I keep wondering where the hell they expect to find them. I mean it's one thing to find a good Linux sys admin but finding one with an active clearance? If you do find one you'd just be stealing them from some other agency/contractor.

A lot of hackers and creative types are scared to death of the government, and live unconventional lifestyles that the government finds threatening. For example, playing LARP, or liking the original Star Trek (TNG is apparently okay) is a mark against you for some security clearances. And because very smart people do their homework -- they find these things out and it disillusions them.

If the NSA wants better numbers, they need to shed their preconceptions. But then, that's exactly the kind of thinking that's been lacking in american intelligence services for about the past sixty years: We've been on a downward trend of skepticism and preconceptions being held so long they become accepted wisdom without testing and re-evaluating ever since the late 1950s. Once a "negative attribute" gets added to the list of things to watch for, it never comes off "out of an abundance of caution" -- and a reckless lack of common sense!

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30938594)

A lot of hackers and creative types are scared to death of the government, and live unconventional lifestyles that the government finds threatening. For example, playing LARP, or liking the original Star Trek (TNG is apparently okay) is a mark against you for some security clearances. And because very smart people do their homework -- they find these things out and it disillusions them.

If the NSA wants better numbers, they need to shed their preconceptions. But then, that's exactly the kind of thinking that's been lacking in american intelligence services for about the past sixty years: We've been on a downward trend of skepticism and preconceptions being held so long they become accepted wisdom without testing and re-evaluating ever since the late 1950s. Once a "negative attribute" gets added to the list of things to watch for, it never comes off "out of an abundance of caution" -- and a reckless lack of common sense!

More total bullshit. Star Trek and LARP are a mark against you for "some security clearances"? Not any that the American government issues. Where did you even come up with that? Pulled it out of some cheesy novel or crappy TV show? And how did you become an expert on the kind of thinking that goes on in the American Intelligence services? TV News broadcasts? NY Times Best Seller Novel? Have you ever even worked in the Intelligence industry? I bet you applied and were rejected, then rationalized it with your paranoid fictional reasons.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30939060)

More total bullshit. Star Trek and LARP are a mark against you for "some security clearances"? Not any that the American government issues. Where did you even come up with that? Pulled it out of some cheesy novel or crappy TV show? And how did you become an expert on the kind of thinking that goes on in the American Intelligence services? TV News broadcasts? NY Times Best Seller Novel? Have you ever even worked in the Intelligence industry? I bet you applied and were rejected, then rationalized it with your paranoid fictional reasons.

Star trek: Couldn't find a reference quickly.
LARP: Army frowns on Dungeons and Dragons [ynetnews.com]
Cheesy novels and TV shows: Looked on FOX, only found CSI. NYT Best seller list gives 'Dear John' as your answer for this weeks' crappy novel. Although I prefer The Sword and the Shield [amazon.com] if you want a non-crappy novel about the intelligence community to read (and that you have a reaonable chance of acquiring).
How I became an "expert on the kind of thinking that goes on in the American Intelligence services": If I told you, I'd have to kill you. But TV News broadcasts are valid sources in open source intelligence.
Have I ever worked in the intelligence industry: Yes, but I can only confirm dates of employment.
Reason for security clearance rejection: Large outstanding debt and voluntary admission to a hospital for acute treatment of PTSD, suicide.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938832)

For example, playing LARP, or liking the original Star Trek (TNG is apparently okay) is a mark against you for some security clearances.

Having done both those things, *and* having a high security clearance while doing them, *and* working with nuclear weapons - I can comfortably say, like everything else you've posted in this thread, you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30939104)

Having done both those things, *and* having a high security clearance while doing them, *and* working with nuclear weapons - I can comfortably say, like everything else you've posted in this thread, you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about.

In my experience, people who handle nuclear weapons are told not to publicize that fact. They also don't swear on a public forum just to prove a point, they tend to be very cool and reserved. So, I'm thinking you should sue your face for slander.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30939724)

In my experience, people who handle nuclear weapons are told not to publicize that fact. They also don't swear on a public forum just to prove a point, they tend to be very cool and reserved. So, I'm thinking you should sue your face for slander.

Well, again, your 'experience' (read: stereotypes) are utterly and completely wrong. Which should come as no surprise.
 
Heck, here's an public form [missileforums.com] organized for and by USAF missile types. Here's a public site [navynucweps.com] and organization for USN nuclear weaponeers.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30936512)

Your post is so full of tired stereotypes it's impossible to read.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (2, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936540)

They never did come up with a good answer to how they can recruit the necessary talent when the aforementioned is generally anti-authoritarian.

The same way they recruit very bright people for other specialized fields - they recruit the people who aren't anti-authoritarian, or who are anti-authoritarian but can submerge that enough to get along and do their jobs properly. (The Submarine Service and the various special forces are well stocked with the latter.) It may not appeal to stereotypical 'average Slashdotter', but then that is a fairly small demographic even within the IT world.
 

Everything about this theatre is contrary to conventional military discipline.

Or so goes the meme/stereotype outside the military... In reality, the military knows very well how to handle a wide variety of personality types. Half the guys on my crew (including me) would have been in the brig had we been in the surface Navy rather than the Submarine Force. But our chain-of-command knew well the demands of dealing with the energy of guys in their early to mid twenties with above average intelligence - so long as we did our jobs, didn't endanger ships safety, and didn't cause physical harm... almost the sky was the limit.
 

This is an organization that still believes that only men should be in their little club, gays are bad, and if you're over 30 you're too old. Maybe that works well when you're comparing gun sizes, but in this theatre the groups they're excluding have exactly the human resources such an operation needs: Women are generally able to multitask and see the "big picture" easier than men, gays stereotypically gravitate towards creative endeavors (theatre, graphic design, etc.), and the over 30 crowd has exactly the kind of in-depth understanding of the technology and experience necessary to use it that a bunch of twenty-somethings just can't match, no matter how good the training.

Again with the stereotypes... First off, this is 2010 not 1910. There's been women in the service for decades now. The military 'officially' believes gays are bad because the law requires it, down at the working troop level it's not a problem. And given the number of chiefs and senior offices I knew and know that are over thirty... Well, like the rest of your stereotypes, you're simply wrong.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937674)

The same way they recruit very bright people for other specialized fields - they recruit the people who aren't anti-authoritarian, or who are anti-authoritarian but can submerge that enough to get along and do their jobs properly. (The Submarine Service and the various special forces are well stocked with the latter.) It may not appeal to stereotypical 'average Slashdotter', but then that is a fairly small demographic even within the IT world.

Most people in IT aren't anti-authoritarian just to be an ass -- they are because they have a low tolerance for people who try to order them around that they have no respect for or feel are less capable of doing the job than they are. That's readily cured with training -- but that's an up-front cost that I don't think the military is willing to absorb because skimming off the top is cheaper. They haven't had to dig into the labor pool. Maybe they don't need to, I don't know -- but the whole point of basic is to change attitudes, which is all that is. It's an artificial barrier.

In reality, the military knows very well how to handle a wide variety of personality types. Half the guys on my crew (including me) would have been in the brig had we been in the surface Navy rather than the Submarine Force.

You've just stated a logical contradiction: You can't say the military as a whole can handle a wide variety of personality types, and in the next breath state you'd be thrown in the brig if you were in a different branch of service. You're comparing apples and oranges -- I made a general statement that holds true for the general case. You are making a specific statement that is true in that one instance. Both can be logically true.

First off, this is 2010 not 1910. There's been women in the service for decades now.

Care to point me in the direction of any women who have managed to make General, in any branch of service? Last I checked, there were none. So women may be in the military, but they either lack the same potential as men -- or environmental factors are holding them back. Which one do you suppose it is?

And given the number of chiefs and senior offices I knew and know that are over thirty... Well, like the rest of your stereotypes, you're simply wrong.

I was referring to recruitment, and I am not wrong. The age requirements for the air force is age 27. If you're older than that, you cannot enlist unless you've had prior service.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

Lodragandraoidh (639696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938630)

Care to point me in the direction of any women who have managed to make General, in any branch of service? Last I checked, there were none. So women may be in the military, but they either lack the same potential as men -- or environmental factors are holding them back. Which one do you suppose it is?

You didn't check hard enough:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/23/woman.general/index.html [cnn.com]

http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html [army.mil]

There are a bunch of women generals (up to 4 star) past and present in the army.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (4, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938692)

Most people in IT aren't anti-authoritarian just to be an ass -- they are because they have a low tolerance for people who try to order them around that they have no respect for or feel are less capable of doing the job than they are. That's readily cured with training -- but that's an up-front cost that I don't think the military is willing to absorb because skimming off the top is cheaper. They haven't had to dig into the labor pool. Maybe they don't need to, I don't know -- but the whole point of basic is to change attitudes, which is all that is. It's an artificial barrier.

Well, your stereotype of basic training, like all your stereotypes is flat out wrong. The point of basic is to instill discipline and modify behavior. The military doesn't give a rat fuck about your attitude so long as it doesn't affect your discipline, behavior, or work. (And you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the military does hire civilians in special cases, and even assigns them to operational and deployed units.)
 

I made a general statement that holds true for the general case.

Except, like each and every one of your other general statements and stereotypes, you are flat out wrong. I quoted one specific case, but that does not invalidate my other statement.
 

Care to point me in the direction of any women who have managed to make General, in any branch of service? Last I checked, there were none.

Why not just check Google? [lmgtfy.com] (I imagine you haven't bothered to check Google in a couple of decades because stereotypes are easy and you're lazy.)
 

And given the number of chiefs and senior offices I knew and know that are over thirty... Well, like the rest of your stereotypes, you're simply wrong.

I was referring to recruitment, and I am not wrong.

Well, other than your general laziness, why didn't you say recruiting? And even so, you're still wrong. The military has long waived the age requirements for narrow and specialized fields where civilian experience is desirable and not available among younger people. If they don't want to put them in uniform for some reason, they hire 'em as DoD civilians.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (-1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30939276)

Well, your stereotype of basic training, like all your stereotypes is flat out wrong. The point of basic is to instill discipline and modify behavior.

Attitude, n. "the way a person views something or tends to behave towards it, often in an evaluative way."

The military doesn't give a rat fuck about your attitude...

I would gather that you have not been in the military. In my experience, they're confident enough of their service and their statements about it to not resort to terms like "rat fuck". As well, if they honestly do have a problem with someone, it's solved quickly and quietly so they can go back to their drinks.

(And you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the military does hire civilians in special cases, and even assigns them to operational and deployed units.)

I didn't mention any of that in my original post, nor do I see it's relevance. You are attempting to muddy the waters with irrelevant commentary to detract from the fact that you don't like me personally and are throwing irrational argument after irrational argument.

And even so, you're still wrong. The military has long waived the age requirements for narrow and specialized fields where civilian experience is desirable and not available among younger people.

Citation [about.com] aaaand... citation [allexperts.com] . Care to revise your statement, sir?

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939962)

Citation [about.com] maximum age is 42. Story [army.com] about someone joining at the age of 36.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (2, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30940074)

The military doesn't give a rat fuck about your attitude...

I would gather that you have not been in the military. In my experience, they're confident enough of their service and their statements about it to not resort to terms like "rat fuck". As well, if they honestly do have a problem with someone, it's solved quickly and quietly so they can go back to their drinks.

Well, like the rest of your stereotyping - you're dead wrong. (Again, no surprise.) I was in the USN Submarine service from 81-91. On top of that, the area I live in is a Navy town so I count a large number of active duty, discharged, and retired military among my friends and acquaintances and the same for DoD civilians.
 

(And you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the military does hire civilians in special cases, and even assigns them to operational and deployed units.)

I didn't mention any of that in my original post, nor do I see it's relevance.

No, you didn't mention it. (But given your general ignorance, I'm not surprised.) It is relevant because you seem to be under the misapprehension that the only way for the military to obtain personnel with special skills is to induct them into uniform.
 

You are attempting to muddy the waters with irrelevant commentary to detract from the fact that you don't like me personally and are throwing irrational argument after irrational argument.

Translation: My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts.
 

And even so, you're still wrong. The military has long waived the age requirements for narrow and specialized fields where civilian experience is desirable and not available among younger people.

Citation aaaand... citation. Care to revise your statement, sir?

I'll go you one better - and cite the actual law of the land [gpo.gov] rather than some third party website.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (4, Insightful)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936690)

: Women are generally able to multitask and see the "big picture" easier than men, gays stereotypically gravitate towards creative endeavors (theatre, graphic design, etc.), and the over 30 crowd has exactly the kind of in-depth understanding of the technology and experience necessary to use it that a bunch of twenty-somethings just can't match, no matter how good the training.

Wow, that was not where I thought you were going with that.

And it doesn't seem very rational. All of the in/famous hackers I can think of are at least men, and most are Caucasian. DVD John, Kevin Mitnic, Stroustrup, Paul Lutus, Linus Torvalds, Woz, Stall Man, Wall, Knuth, Shimomura, Johnathan James, and Adrian Lamo... And I don't think any of them are homosexual.. Do you have any counter-examples that would alter this perception?

I think the only thing these people have in common is they aren't just empty suits like the government seems to love to employ, but they are all men.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937266)

And it doesn't seem very rational. All of the in/famous hackers I can think of are at least men, and most are Caucasian. DVD John, Kevin Mitnic, Stroustrup, Paul Lutus, Linus Torvalds, Woz, Stall Man, Wall, Knuth, Shimomura, Johnathan James, and Adrian Lamo... And I don't think any of them are homosexual.. Do you have any counter-examples that would alter this perception?

It's a mark of arrogance that just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist. Esther Dyson, Sally Floyd (TCP/IP), Susan Kare, Jeri Ellsworth (C64), Mary Lou Jepsen (CTO of OLPC), Radia Perlman (invented the Spanning Tree Protocol)... and the list goes on.

We aren't visible because this is a male-dominated field -- that doesn't mean the same potentialities don't exist in women, recurring generation after generation, only to perish because society can't find a way to support women in science and technology. Some brave souls do so in spite of the obstacles -- and if they don't make headlines as often, that's no proof against their abilities, but rather social commentary on existing prejudices.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (2, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937608)

Stall Man
Is he the superhero that can never keep his jet aloft?

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30938426)

No, he's the hair covered groomsman who keeps all the stalls clean. (And vaguely resembles a Sasquatch.)

Oh? You mean Stalhman!? Oh, that's the PR guy behind GNU, and also vaguely resembles a Sasquatch.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939274)

Alan Turing

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30936798)

Is that the case? no wonder all Science and Technology was created by Men... because we can't spot patterns, or multitask as easily...
Yeah, keep telling yourself your fairy tales, a great defence mechanism...

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937204)

Yikes, you threw a lot of stereotypes out there.

Women can join any US military branch but cannot (as in not allowed) perform Combat duties. You can join the US Army at 42 without a waiver.. so 30 is not too old. Gay men and women are tolerated because they are just as good as everyone else.. the problem comes in when a guy is sitting on the bench outside the shower room watching everyone go in and out (this happens!) and everyone freaks out and stereotypes all gay guys to be that way.

Finally, most services are very regimented and rigid but all branches have their "weirdo" groups/units to put the special people into. Usually you have to earn your way in and not just be non-conformist. Which means you have to be able to play ball AND bring something extra to the table. If you can't bottle up your non-compliance and bring your special skillset.. you are a loose cannon and not wanted. Which is a good thing!

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938206)

You can join the US Army at 42 without a waiver.. so 30 is not too old.

This branch is run by the Air Force, where the limit is 27.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938716)

In that case, my only argument about the age of USAF enlistment can be: They must think that ~50 is the typical retirement age and back-dated from there. I would hope someone over 27 could still get in with a waiver.. but that would be a fight.

I do agree with you that military service doesn't blend well with free-thinking folks. I can't see why a non-conformist would join such a rules/regulations based organization. But i'd like to put forth that Clear goals and purpose are attractive to many people including free-thinkers. So many people have treasure troves of knowledge and skills that they don't have a reason to apply.. sometimes a person will accept discomfort for the opportunity to become useful to a large group of people.. at the expense of themselves. To have purpose is everything.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30939346)

I do agree with you that military service doesn't blend well with free-thinking folks. I can't see why a non-conformist would join such a rules/regulations based organization. But i'd like to put forth that Clear goals and purpose are attractive to many people including free-thinkers. So many people have treasure troves of knowledge and skills that they don't have a reason to apply.. sometimes a person will accept discomfort for the opportunity to become useful to a large group of people.. at the expense of themselves. To have purpose is everything.

A common argument made by recruiters. Patriotism makes a good breakfast, but it makes a terrible dinner. Pay is the big reason why they lose talent. But I agree with your assertion -- free-thinkers know that the individual is nothing more than a structure of potential energies, created for another purpose. It is made to be sacrificed in the service of an idea or institution, and in so doing, become an instrument of culture and legend. Such is the true purpose of a democracy: To make great people.

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937556)

...and if you're over 30 you're too old.

You haven't been paying close enough to their despiration (and attrition).

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938280)

You haven't been paying close enough to their despiration (and attrition).

It's 'desperation', and they revised their enlistment requirements in August 2009. The enlistment age for the Air Force is 27 now. Did you read the rest of this thread before posting that?

Re:Cyberwarfare? (1)

Lodragandraoidh (639696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938668)

Currently I believe 39 is the maximum age to enlist...but there may be waivers for certain fields.

Airforce handicaps (1)

mrheckman (939480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938066)

Few women, no gays, age limit. Then, too, there's the religious intolerance that has been reported at the Air Force Academy. (Google it, there are a lot of articles, most when it was first reported in 2005, but also since then.) I wonder what percentage of people with the talents needed to be "cyberwarriors" are evangelical Christians?

Re:Cyberwarfare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939872)

Men are the best hackers (and almost the only hackers, there are few female hackers). The only thing I've ever seen "female geeks" do is complain about mmmeeeennnnn.

Navy has one too (1)

Waynelson (1068550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935594)

The navy is standing up a cyber-warfare group as well

Tenth Fleet will be reactivated in October 2009 as the U.S. Navy's Fleet Cyber Command/10th Fleet.[2] The command will be the Naval component of United States Cyber Command. Its first commander will be VADM Bernard J. McCullough III. [3]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tenth_Fleet#Fleet_Cyber_Command [wikipedia.org]

Re:Navy has one too (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935944)

Tenth Fleet will be reactivated in October 2009 as the U.S. Navy's Fleet Cyber Command/10th Fleet.

Yay - send aircraft carriers with 105mm gus to attack spammers - gets my vote!

Re:Navy has one too (1)

chaos579 (1645021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938440)

so they are converting the 10th fleet into a mobile boat of hackers?

AF cyberspace command is a joke... (1)

Anik315 (585913) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935662)

Most people in the military are severely lacking in kind of skills needed to protect America's electronic infrastructure. It has to do with military culture more than anything else. Techies just don't get promoted the way fighter pilots do. I would shut the whole thing down and start a new branch or something. Otherwise, it's a giant waste of money.

Re:AF cyberspace command is a joke... (1)

CByrd17 (987455) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936272)

Most people in the military will not be serving in this command. Only the qualified will. A few years ago we could have said that most people in the military are severely lacking in the kind of skills needed to operate UAVs, and yet that particular foray into technology seems to be going okay. Fighter pilots are going away...techies are up and coming. Even the military adapts.

Re:AF cyberspace command is a joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30937218)

Well that's kind of what the AF is designed to do right now.

The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.

Re:AF cyberspace command is a joke... (1)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30940000)

There are plenty of people in the military with the competency to do the task at hand. Bringing the talent in is NOT the issue. Its KEEPING THEM. A person that enlists in the Air Force for 4-6 years into a computer systems job has the oppurtunity to gain valuable skills.

On the outside, 4-6 years of experience with those skills can get you double the salary the military can provide. Paycheck rules.

Army of Darkness (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30935804)

In cyberspace, traditional "army" concepts have no meaning, specially the partt when we talk about huge number of active/willing participants. The only thing that could have army-like numbers are zombie PCs, something that "should" not be used (your country hacking your pc to attack what they consider enemies? and leaving the door open so potentially youir enemy could use your pc too?. They should behave as firefighters (taking measures/educating to limit a lot the odds that someone gets zombified) or terrorists/commandos (skilled individuals could make big differences).

In fact, the weapons in cyberwar only have meaning because no or weak defenses. And a good attack would be improving those "defenses", both at consumer level (they should punish or do official statements about recommending NOT using vulnerable software, as i.e. did several countries last weeks about IE, promote secure practices and alternative software and platforms, etc) as an enterprise level (from security scanning/assessment of critical and general places). And that is no work of military but of government.

Re:Army of Darkness (1)

hargrand (1301911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936188)

> And that is no work of military but of government.

Last time I checked the military was part of the government. At least that's the case in the U.S. I suppose it could be different where you live.

That aside, I think you're overreacting somewhat. Most in the military see the network as another domain in which to operate (much like the air or sea). The purpose of gaining air or sea supremacy is to ensure that you can effectively use that domain while denying your adversary the use of it. The big difference though is that while it's not really normal to have to contest regions of air or space, the normal state of affairs is that the "cyber" domain is very much being contested on a daily basis. These organizations are intended to provide the expertise and equipment / software needed to effectively operate in this contested domain.

Re:Army of Darkness (1)

hargrand (1301911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936322)

> to contest regions of air or space

Meant to say "air and sea", but the same could be said of space as well.

Re:Army of Darkness (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938140)

> Last time I checked the military was part of the government.

The government is a lot of things, not just military. You have there public education, public safety, health and economy sectors, and a lot of other areas that could be related and take part of this. But network safety and good practices (as in every participant on it) should be a civil matter, not militar one.

Putting the base of all of this in military level is like declaring war on a foreing country because there is a disease there, instead of educating people on healthy living, avoiding infections or developing and administering vaccines. Just the prevention have a lot of positive incomes, even if no danger of getting "attacked" by sick people.

Re:Army of Darkness (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938272)

That aside, I think you're overreacting somewhat. Most in the military see the network as another domain in which to operate (much like the air or sea). The purpose of gaining air or sea supremacy is to ensure that you can effectively use that domain while denying your adversary the use of it. The big difference though is that while it's not really normal to have to contest regions of air or space, the normal state of affairs is that the "cyber" domain is very much being contested on a daily basis. These organizations are intended to provide the expertise and equipment / software needed to effectively operate in this contested domain.

The problem is that information systems are not physical environments. In the physical realm, we have to deal with the laws of physics. The only thing we can do about that is gain a better understanding of them (providing technology and capabilities that weren't possible previously). But in the end, we don't get to re-write the laws of physics. You can make it hard to physically occupy a given space but ultimately there's nothing that makes it impossible to occupy a given space. With information systems, we write the rules. Don't like how a protocol works? Update it or use a different one. Voila. The rules have changed.

Information warfare is espionage. It is not a battleground. We need to make sure we're applying the right concepts to this environment. And we need to ensure that military involvement is appropriate. We do not need a military force to "fight" a "cyber war." But we may need a military force to disable / destroy / capture equipment related to an information warfare operation.

HaCKERZ (1)

RedTeflon (1695836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936140)

Does this mean the president will have his thumb on a little red button to release the HaCKERZ now?

Re:HaCKERZ (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936414)

Does this mean the president will have his thumb on a little red button to release the HaCKERZ now?

"Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:... They're trashing our rights man! They're trashing the flow of data! Hack the planet!"

Inspiring! (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936190)

There is a threat to our knowledge, our words, our very sense of self. It permeates the ether, watching, waiting for us to lower our guard. Although we sit on the brink of moral decay, staring back from the abyss towards an enemy unseen, we shall not falter in our duty. We must stand firm against these intruders. Our very credit scores are at stake. And I tell you this: wherever they are, they will be met with strength. We shall fight them on the wireless. We shall fight them at the backbone. We shall never surrender. And though these days may be marked as the darkest days in the history of the MacOS, it is history that will one day show that we did not give ground where it was not taken. G-Force!

We could just fix our OS problem instead (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936202)

Instead of spending yet another astronomical amount of resources to try to patch up our "defenses", why not fund a few open source projects to get a some implementations of the Capability Security Model [c2.com] out into circulation?

A few well placed millions (or heck, even thousands) could fix the internet for good, and then we could all get on with general purpose computing, without the need for virus scanners, etc.

codename (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30936740)

echo mirage?

lets have a pretend war with these twits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30937172)

I'll bet i can have a better armed force ready in half a day then these twits do in how long this take?
blah blah im waiting to submit
blah blah im waiting to submit
blah blah im waiting to submit
blah blah im waiting to submit

Cyber Militia (1)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#30937866)

I don't understand why they don't properly organize a cyber-militia. Russia and China sure seem to have their own going.

We could pounce them 5 to 1 with all the private computer networks and crackers around the World that might contribute. They just need a proper command and control system, otherwise I could totally see more than a few friendly fire incidents ( "sorry about that L.A., I thought I was pulling the plug on the power grid in Bejing").

Finally! (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938678)

US is going to open a can of whoop-ass with its own Kuang Grade Mark Eleven icebreaker!

Carefully arranged techno-babble (2, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30938696)

This summary read like the back cover of a sequel to Neuromancer.

Created by Jay Rockefeller.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30939312)

The same person who says the internet never should have existed creates a military unit that can kill the internet.

Fuck the rockefellers, evil satanist bastards.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?