Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

US To Release International Cyber Strategy Today

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the stole-it-from-tankspot dept.

The Internet 64

vivIsel writes "Today, the Obama Administration will be releasing its first-ever strategy for 'international cooperation in cyberspace.' Following on Friday's release of the White House domestic cybersecurity proposal, this strategy document will govern how the US behaves on the international stage — including around big issues like internet governance and internet freedom. The strategy's unveiling, which will be keynoted by Hillary Clinton with remarks by Secretaries Holder, Locke and Napolitano, will be streamed live on whitehouse.gov starting at 3:00PM EDT today."

cancel ×

64 comments

Also in the news (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140328)

Syria releases its cyber strategy.

1) Look for any excuse
2) Riot
3) Prophet

Re:Also in the news (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140410)

Syria releases its cyber strategy.

1) Look for any excuse
2) Riot
3) Prophet

The US strategy will be:

1) Look for copyright infringement (or poker, maybe even porn)
2) Seize domains
3) Profit

Re:Also in the news (0)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140614)

FBI should really put up ads on the seized domains. The more high value sites they seize, the more money they would make.

Re:Also in the news (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140978)

They do. http://www.pokerstars.com/ [pokerstars.com] Here's an example. There's an ad for the FBI :)

Re:Also in the news (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142704)

I feel so guilty

I was away from Pokerstars for a few years, and earlier this year I used it to make a little extra cash. I cashed out some money, and a few days later wham!

When people ask me why I am a Libertarian, I tell them that all I want to do is play poker online and maybe not wear my seatbelt at certain times if I don't want to. Seriously, is that too much to ask?

Let me guess (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36140378)

It will include yet even more revenue, and assume yet even more power over the people, all the while making the business of government more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid.

I can't put my finger on it, but this all seems very, very familiar, as if this cyclical expansion of government has been repeating for 200 years.

Re:Let me guess (5, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140476)

It will include yet even more revenue, and assume yet even more power over the people, all the while making the business of government more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid.

I can't put my finger on it, but this all seems very, very familiar, as if this cyclical expansion of government has been repeating for 200 years.

Of course, you can't just have a free and open internet, anywhere in the world. You get upstarts like WikiLeaks and DemocracyNow that tell people things they should not know.

This does not please the corporate Overlords. Look for the complete reversal of net neutrality over the next few years.

Re:Let me guess (3, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141000)

I can't put my finger on it, but this all seems very, very familiar, as if this cyclical expansion of government has been repeating for 200 years.

I think it's more like repeating as long as humanity has existed.

The Collapse of Complex Societies... (1, Redundant)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142254)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Fall_of_civilizations [wikipedia.org]
"Joseph Tainter in "The Collapse of Complex Societies" suggested that there were diminishing returns to complexity, due to which, as states achieved a maximum permissible complexity, they would decline when further increases actually produced a negative return. Tainter suggested that Rome achieved this figure in the 2nd Century AD."

The suggestion is that civilizations tend to refuse to accept going down any path to a more sensible solution than collapse because every move towards better social health would be more painful than just business-as-usual. Of course, ideally, that is what political leadership (not political followership?) is for, to get people to make the hard choices and improve overall social health.

More on social pyramids and economics:
    "The Mythology of Wealth"
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402 [conceptualguerilla.com]

As long as there is a huge and growing rich/poor divide in this world, driven in part by increasing automation decreasing the value of most human labor, and we fail to do anything about that overall situation (like institute a basic income), our country will be at increasing risk for all sorts of different directions, of which cyber threats are only one set of issues. Here is a document prepared for President Kennedy and delivered to President Johnson in 1964, that is only more and more true in some ways:
    "The Triple Revolution Memorandum: Cybernation, Weaponry, Human Rights"
    http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org]
"The fundamental problem posed by the cybernation revolution in the U.S. is that it invalidates the general mechanism so far employed to undergird people's rights as consumers. Up to this time economic resources have been distributed on the basis of contributions to production, with machines and men competing for employment on somewhat equal terms. In the developing cybernated system, potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings. As machines take over production from men, they absorb an increasing proportion of resources while the men who are displaced become dependent on minimal and unrelated government measure -- unemployment insurance, social security, welfare payments. These measures are less and less able to disguise a historic paradox: That a substantial proportion of the population is subsisting on minimal incomes, often below the poverty line, at a time when sufficient productive potential is available to supply the needs of everyone in the U.S.
    The existence of this paradox is denied or ignored by conventional economic analysis. The general economic approach argues that potential demand, which if filled would raise the number of jobs and provide incomes to those holding them, is underestimated. Most contemporary economic analysis states that all of the available labor force and industrial capacity is required to meet the needs of consumers and industry and to provide adequate public services: Schools, parks, roads, homes, decent cities, and clean water and air. It is further argued that demand could be increased, by a variety of standard techniques, to any desired extent by providing money and machines to improve the conditions of the billions of impoverished people elsewhere in the world, who need food and shelter, clothes and machinery and everything else the industrial nations take for granted.
    There is no question that cybernation does increase the potential for the provision of funds to neglected public sectors. Nor is there any question that cybernation would make possible the abolition of poverty at home and abroad. But the industrial system does not possess any adequate mechanisms to permit these potentials to become realities. The industrial system was designed to produce an ever-increasing quantity of goods as efficiently as possible, and it was assumed that the distribution of the power to purchase these goods would occur almost automatically. The continuance of the income-through-jobs link as the only major mechanism for distributing effective demand -- for granting the right to consume --now acts as the main brake on the almost unlimited capacity of a cybernated productive system."

See Marshall Brain's Robotic Nation essays and Manna story for a more modern treatment of this.
    http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm [marshallbrain.com]
    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm [marshallbrain.com]

Why do spammers spam? Why do thieves do identity theft or break into computers? We have created a socio-economic system where that makes a lot of sense for some as far as a way to earn a living. We need a better socioeconomic system more than we need just some new laws to patch up an old system that is more-and-more out of sync with our technological possibilities. On 21st Century Enlightenment:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo [youtube.com]

Summary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36140418)

1. Pull the plug on Grandma, as per Republican Budget plans
2. Tax cuts for the rich paid for by pulling the plug on medical care for the poor
3. Transfer of American natural resources to oil companies, who will sell us back these resources at a 500% markup
4. Vote for the same Republicans that just ruined the country
5. Lose the Senate in 2012 (enables moneygrab/poormurder)
6. Censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA

Re:Summary (0, Offtopic)

gearsmithy (1869466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140470)

I bet you look really cute in your blue cheerleader outfit.

Re:Summary (0)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140696)

Your ridicule is inappropriate, and you appear to be part of the problem.

Re:Summary (0, Offtopic)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140886)

Yeah, because the (D) can do no wrong, and the (R) can do no right. Here's a summary of counter points ...

1) Grandma's plug is being decided Obamacare Death Panels due to lack of unlimited government funding to keep 85 year olds alive.
2) Poor don't pay taxes, therefore all tax cuts come from the "rich".Can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay any.
3) And the Government makes 10 times what Big Oil does, off Big Oil. And I suggest you don't drive your car ever again. Ride your bike, in the snow, uphill both ways.
4) It was (D) and (R) that ruined the country. Collaborative Effort my friend.
5) That is entirely possible. After the Obamacare debacle the (D) should lose the senate. The problem is that it will be (R) that replaces them. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
6) MAFIAA is one of the (D) party sponsors. It is Hollywood, who are hardly big sponsors of the (R) party.

The solution is not (D) or (R) but yourself. If we only took responsibility for ourselves, we would need a whole lot less governance. People who want more government usually don't want to be responsible for themselves and want big brother or momma' s teet .

Re:Summary (-1, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141016)

Not interested in your P3 (pinhead partisan politics), sorry.

Re:Summary (-1, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141388)

1) Nice to see shills for the GOP haven't changed much. There never were any death panels in the healthcare reform package, even Fox news has admitted to the fabrication.

2) That's bullshit there, the issue is that the tax cuts are going to the rich rather than the middle class, plus the reason why the poor need more help is exploitation by the upper classes.

3) The government does take more, but the government also gives a lot more back, when's the last time Big Oil gave you anything other than a bit of gas? Trust me, you get a lot more for your tax dollars than you do for your gas dollars.

4) It wasn't an equal effort, despite your claims, care to actually cite something that demonstrates that?

5) The health care reform wasn't a debacle, unless you mean that they settle for less than single payer.

6) Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that they don't need to buy GOP politicians as they bend over for corporate interests for free.

Re:Summary (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141496)

>>>There never were any death panels in the healthcare reform package, even Fox news has admitted to the fabrication.

Actually there are death panels (just set-up two months ago) but of course they are not called that. They are "life advisement panels". Kinda like how the Libyan War is not a war, but "ballistic peacekeeping" (or something like that). These panels advise people they should accept 80 years as long enough, voluntarily pull the plug, and save the government money.

"There will necessarily be rationing of healthcare." - Ezekiel Emanuel, new czar of health

Re:Summary (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142614)

These panels advise people they should accept 80 years as long enough, voluntarily pull the plug, and save the government money.

This seems slightly different than the commercial death panels that stop the checks and advise you to prove it wasn't pre-existing, and save themselves money.

Re:Summary (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142840)

True. The ONE good thing to come from Pelosicare Bill was denying insurance companies the ability to refuse service for pre-existing conditions.

Anyway: I'd rather deal with neither of them (government or insurance) and just pay my dentist or doctor directly with cash. The only insurance I have is for major illness, when it exceeds $25,000 cost. There's nobody, not congress nor nationwide, that can say "no" when I'm paying directly.

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155804)

These panels advise people they should accept 80 years as long enough, voluntarily pull the plug, and save the government money.

Cite a specific instance of this happening, or admit that you made it up. Those are your only possible choices.

Re:Summary (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142224)

care to actually cite something that demonstrates that?

Yes, how dare he not provide footnotes. After all, you provided citations and references for each of your carefully-researched, exhaustively studied counterpoints, relying on hard facts and numbers, rather than appeals to emotion and "common sense" that you no doubt picked up from some politicians' talking points.

Re:Summary (1)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140838)

Don't know if you read TFS, but this plan is going to be the product of a Democratic administration. Stop pretending Democrats and Republicans don't want to screw you over equally.

Re:Summary (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140868)

"1. Pull the plug on Grandma, as per Republican Budget plans
2. Tax cuts for the rich paid for by pulling the plug on medical care for the poor
3. Transfer of American natural resources to oil companies, who will sell us back these resources at a 500% markup
4. Vote for the same Republicans that just ruined the country
5. Lose the Senate in 2012 (enables moneygrab/poormurder)
6. Censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA"

You seem to be buying the stagecraft. The Democrats are just playing Dean Martin to the Republican's Jerry Lewis. There has to be a remotely credible opposition to facilitate the transition to oligarchy without the frog jumping out of the pot. As long as a significant portion of the populace thinks the Democrats present a realistic threat to corporate integration into government, Democrats (and Republicans) will keep getting elected, and keep approving corporatist handovers like the health care package.

People need to believe there is a balance struck by opposing forces, so they imagine that Democrats and Republicans are not on the same side. The CItizens United ruling (and most critically its affirmation of the utterly antithetical-to-American-democracy concept of corporate person-hood) put a bullet in the head of that dying notion.

I completely understand, and agree, that there is at the moment no more credible opposition to the oligarchy than the Democrats. But that is only because it is a two-man show and their role is meant to be less obviously hostile to We The People, not because they are dancing to a different piper's tune.

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36141044)

Bingo. Classic good cop/bad cop, with the roles being reversed every other generation or so....

Re:Summary (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141182)

Indeed, it's the same everywhere. Here in the UK, 25 years ago the left was socialist, now the left has moved so far over to the right, they can't even see where the middle ground used to be (interestingly most of the freedoms that were granted to the banks to screw us all over in the 90's/00's were granted by the "left"). There is no real choice left any more and there are no checks and balances on the excesses of either party because they both seem to have the same goals.

Re:Summary (1)

Baki (72515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142510)

The incredible thing is, that the british electorate just gave away the chance to end the corrupt two party system. They rejected the voting law reform which would have led to more coalition governments that are usual in most north & central european democracies.

More party systems give more parties and new parties a realistic chance of getting to power and thus are a very good balance against the corruption of power.

Re:Summary (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140874)

6. [Democrats] will censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA

Fixed that for you.
I noticed your negativeity was directed toward the R's, but both D's and R's are basically the same. They are simply two branches of the same big government party. Both have pledged to sell-out the citizens to the money-holders (i.e. the corporations). Both have proven themselves to be warmongers, power-hungry, and untrustworthy.

IMHO

Remember COICA came from *this* administration. The copyright czar came from *this* administration. And so on. Right now I'm not seeing much difference between the current president and the old Shrub (junior).

Re:Summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36141912)

IMHO

Why do you use this when your DOUCHE NOZZLE / ASSHAT "opinions" have been anything but "humble"?

Re:Summary (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142750)

Would it be more humble if he were to pick a side and defend the position with extremism like the majority of the vocal do?
Anyhow IANAD but you might want to get that raw nerve looked at.

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36144590)

H is not necessarily "humble", of course; H itself is a term.

Re:Summary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36140940)

1. Pull the plug on Grandma, as per Republican Budget plans

you must mean democrats, by implementing the health care agenda, complete with rationing of preventive health care, etc.

2. Tax cuts for the rich paid for by pulling the plug on medical care for the poor

You mean taking the money from the people who employ you, and giving it to the government. Less jobs and more to cover "entitlements".

3. Transfer of American natural resources to oil companies, who will sell us back these resources at a 500% markup.

You mean kill offshore drilling to American companies, and let other countries drill. Give the money to other countries. Brilliant

4. Vote for the same Republicans that just ruined the country

you mean the democrats who put amazing amounts of pressure on housing lenders to allow for easier loans to low income people, creating the housing bubble. Or, you mean the democrats who have been in power for 4 years before this year.

5. Lose the Senate in 2012 (enables moneygrab/poormurder)

you mean this enables the county to get back on its feet.

6. Censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA

you mean the democrats who want to create the nanny state for you.

Re:Summary (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141042)

1. Pull the plug on Grandma, as per Republican Budget plans

But it was fine when the Dems were going to do it with health care reforms I suppose. But those evil Republicans are just horrible for doing it now. In the end, "we the people" are the ones that are going to be screwed by people with both D and R after their name.

2. Tax cuts for the rich paid for by pulling the plug on medical care for the poor

It's a good thing we have other altruistic parties that want to give ponies to everyone.

3. Transfer of American natural resources to oil companies, who will sell us back these resources at a 500% markup

It's probably even more than that, but to be fair Amazon stopped selling that do-it-yourself oil refinery kit.

4. Vote for the same Republicans that just ruined the country

And the Democrats that did before that, and the Reps before that, and the... ad nauseum. Until enough people in this country wake up, we will keep going down this spiral until then, or it all collapses.

6. Censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA

It's a good thing we have Joe Biden to fight those MAFIAA bastards.

US document... (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140438)

"this strategy document will govern how the U.S. behaves on the international stage — including around big issues like internet governance and internet freedom."

Let me summarize: "We'll use a bunch of flowery language like "freedom" and "democratic," but in the end, we'll do WTF we want, while you'll bend over and like it."

Re:US document... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36140956)

You make it sound like that is a bad thing.
We are the mightiest, richest, most powerful, most influential nation in the world. I think whatever is good for the US's interests would be good for these rest of the world's as well.

Face it, the United States of America has the biggest dick and we should use it however we please. Suck it, rest of the world. Suck it long, and suck it hard.

God Bless America.

Re:US document... (1)

losfromla (1294594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146616)

I'm sure your god appreciates that kind of language as much as your mom does

Re:US document... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36143444)

As a independent professional mind hacker / social engineer, I approve of this comment!
Especially the "and like it" part. Way too easy to model realities. Most people aren't even aware of how completely relative reality is. So once you got them, they defend you with all their heart. (Look at Wikipedia... still acting as if there was "the one true reality(TM)"... which is of course theirs... and when needed mine... hehehe ;)^^

no brainer (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140502)

1. "violate the common sense rights of everyone we can find a legal loophole for or write a new law to allow"
2. "also do anything else we think we can get away with"

This is very serious business! (5, Insightful)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140532)

Our campaign contributors and special interest lobbies^H^H^H^H^H^Hintelligence agencies have indicated that pirates^Hterrorists are causing massive profit losses to our chief campaign supporters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinfringements on our patriotic American freedoms, so therefore we decided we now have the power to confiscate any domain name for any reason without due process. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Re:This is very serious business! (1)

Tooke (1961582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146436)

Our campaign contributors and special interest lobbies^Wintelligence agencies have indicated that pirates^Wterrorists are causing massive profit losses to our chief campaign supporters^Winfringements on our patriotic American freedoms, so therefore we decided we now have the power to confiscate any domain name for any reason without due process. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Fixed that for you.

COICA (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140544)

No doubt this is one of the things the US Government is pushing (just like they did before) as part of their strategy to "unify" cyber strategy.

Useless (1)

s31523 (926314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140564)

FTA: It said the document outlines the US agenda "for partnering with other nations and peoples to ensure the prosperity, security, and openness that we seek in our increasingly networked world."

And the |-|4c|3r$ will be right there reading the strategy and figuring out more ways to exploit the net and make money or engage in other activities (terrorism, etc.). This sounds like a useless document.

Should've waited until after the release (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140618)

That way we wouldn't have to see this story twice, and all the foolish speculation that's filling this submission.

Re:Should've waited until after the release (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140916)

Except that we can make some good predictions, based on what the Bush and Obama administrations have been pushing for:
  • They will probably want countries to cooperate on DNS hijacking efforts (the US ones, not the Chinese ones).
  • They will probably want companies in other countries to respect US court orders (i.e. what happened with Hushmail).
  • More cooperation on child-pornography crackdowns
  • More cooperation with the War on Drugs (the DEA has amassed a surveillance network and increasingly looks to the Internet as part of its effort).
  • Back doors in cryptography products

I would be surprised if none of the above were included in the plan.

Re:Should've waited until after the release (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141088)

It's just that all those things are now so obvious, we don't need to waste any more disk space yakking about it anymore. How often do we have to keep repeating ourselves when nobody cares, or just gets shouted down? You can pull up ten year old submissions, and the comments are word for word identical to today's. What is needed is more discussion and implementation of workable countermeasures, technical and otherwise.. Maybe then we can leave the fascists crying in their soup.. and we can carry on our normal, everyday business without having to think about it too much.

Re:Should've waited until after the release (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141208)

Unfortunately, workable countermeasures require people who are informed enough to use them...and more people would rather stay uninformed than take the time to learn. That is why the fascists get away with so much: most people do not bother to question it, let alone fight back against it.

Hang on a minute... (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140630)

"US To Release International Cyber Strategy" - don't people get busted for releasing US strategies? Isn't that what all the fuss about Wikipedia is for?

So now they're just saving the leakers some (jail?) time, or does this mean something else?

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36140692)

Sweetie, you wrote "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikileaks".

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140824)

I know, duh, but I'd already pressed "submit" and the stop button didn't work in time... normally my latency sucks, but when I need high latency, well, Murphy's Law and all that...

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36142410)

The wikileaks "fuss" was about somebody releasing classified information to the public, and has nothing to do with whether "strategic" or "tactical" information was leaked. The information is classified, therefore it is illegal to release - whether or not it's considered "strategic" or "tactical" is irrelevant.

Strategy is regularly and openly discussed by many people, and I don't think you'd have much difficulty finding people discussing the US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan all over the media - they use terms like "Troop Surge" and "counterinsurgency" and "nation building" and "winning hearts and minds." Strategy is the broad strokes needed to achieve your goals. Many times, the specific plan is classified, but it's not very hard to divine the strategic intent of the people in charge.

If you take a look at any of the AWD leaks - and actually understand what you're looking at - you'll see that it's - generally speaking - not "strategic" information at all, anyway - it's very much specific tactical & operational information - situation reports and the like.

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36142524)

It's not illegal for the press to publish leaked information no matter what clearance security it's labeled with. The New York Times proved that many years ago.

Re:Hang on a minute... (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36143412)

1) It is absolutely illegal for Bradley Manning to have improperly handled (and released) classified information, as he is alleged to have done. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned a relese of classified information.

2) It is not always legal for the press to publish leaked information, though admittedly the bar is high, and the government must show a significant likelihood of danger to troops or plans in order to suppress publication. This is further compounded by the fact that Wikileaks is not a US-based organization, thus it would be necessary for them to show that an agent of Wikileaks actually solicited the leaked information, and encouraged someone to leak the data for it to amount to any charges of espionage against wikileaks staffers.

3) The "fuss" over publication of that data is most definitely about PFC Manning's alleged leak of that data. Unless you see legal action being pursued against wikileaks that none of us have heard about?

Re:Hang on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36163934)

If you take a look at any of the AWD leaks - and actually understand what you're looking at - you'll see that it's - generally speaking - not "strategic" information at all, anyway - it's very much specific tactical & operational information - situation reports and the like.

Yes, in the real world it's called having character and behaving honestly. See, it's wrong for you and I to be deceptive intentionally, the same holds true for a governmental organization. If you disagree you are doomed to failure. Good luck.

Live Streaming (2)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140642)

Whatever the politics are, I'm glad that things like this are being streamed over the Internet. I wish that there was more streaming (like a 24/7 stream of the floor of the House and Senate), hopefully that will happen in the future.

Re:Live Streaming (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36141186)

C-SPAN offers 3 streams: http://cspan.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/ [cspan.org]
Whitehouse.gov has a live channel, mostly presidential events (tis the season): http://www.whitehouse.gov/live [whitehouse.gov]
CNN also offers live streams: http://live.cnn.com/ [cnn.com]

Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36140648)

Shame, I can't afford the bandwidth to watch the internet stream live because my country's internet infrastructure is so backwards. Oh, well.

The full range of corporate, I mean, US interests (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140798)

Clinton's remarks "will address the role of cyberspace in advancing the full range of US interests and the importance of international cooperation in advancing cyberspace as a foreign policy priority."

The 'full range of US interests' include, but are not limited to, a two-tiered internet, painfully slow transfer speeds, and uncontrolled spying and invasions of privacy.

Re:The full range of corporate, I mean, US interes (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140988)

The 'full range of US interests' include, but are not limited to, a two-tiered internet, painfully slow transfer speeds, and uncontrolled spying and invasions of privacy.

And, make sure that the US is allowed to do things which if "certain governments" tried to do, the US government would talk about how those governments are suppressing freedom and democracy. (Syria, Iran, China for instance)

I really do fully expect to see a bit of a blatant double standard as the US proclaims they need to be able to do this, while at the same time saying governments they disagree with shouldn't.

Of course, it will be justified as serving the cause of Truth and Justice and that we should never worry about the intentions or actions of the US government.

Re:The full range of corporate, I mean, US interes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36141348)

Small note of interest - China approached the US a few months ago and asked permission to translate the Guidelines [nist.gov] for [nist.gov] Smart Grid [nist.gov] Security [nist.gov] into Chinese (which was granted). If you haven't looked at it before, at least look at the introduction - it's pretty comprehensive, and comes from the NIST Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP), which is a partnership [associatedcontent.com] between NIST, academia, and private and public companies (yes, Google too).

Early release of cyberstrategy... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36140876)

Buy all brand name products and OS's, plug ears, wear rose colored glasses and pray... Lighting hair on fire and running around option required.

Prosperity, Security, and Openness (in that order) (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141032)

From the Article: 'It said the document outlines the US agenda "for partnering with other nations and peoples to ensure the prosperity, security, and openness that we seek in our increasingly networked world."'

Let's see: Prosperity, Security, and Openness.

Let me guess -- in that order, right?

Here's how it plays out:

"What's first on the agenda today, gentlemen?"

"Prosperity"

"All-right, I asked around, and all the lobbyists in my outer office agree on how to maximize prosperity. We should give total control of popular content to the MAFIAA and the Cable and Telcos. Next?"

"Security"

"Right; absolute authority to shut down anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, without having to document anything goes to National Cyber Command. Next?"

"Oppenness"

"Perfect -- nations we don't like, and which are small enough that we can kick their ass, have to allow their people to speak freely on the Internet."

"Awesome, I think we're done. Who's up for a round of golf?"

"Now hang on, there -- we have to make this look like it was a challenging struggle between opposing voices interested only in the best principles of American democracy."

"Right, let's get a couple of the spin doctors to rewrite the health-care debate script. Most of the public bought that."

"Hahaha, that's awesome. Make it so."

This is gunny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36141152)

Their target is wikileaks.

The US has become a second URSS.

I don't mind having an overlord... as long as he does the job right. I'm sick of our current incompetent ones.

The rest is history.

In a nut shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36141160)

You have to play by our rules, we don't, and we can change them whenever we like.

If you don't understand it -- make it illegal! (2)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141166)

The end of the beginning of the end for the Internet.

This is the beginning of the middle of its long slow death by a thousand cuts.

The backing track (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36141802)

will be "ICE, ICE, Baby."
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...