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!

U.S. Congress Authorizes Offensive Use of Cyberwarfare

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-the-battle-to-the-enemy's-router dept.

Security 206

smitty777 writes "Congress has recently authorized the use of offensive military action in cyberspace. From the December 12th conference on the National Defense Authorization Act, it states, 'Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to: (1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and (2) the War Powers Resolution.' According to the FAS, 'Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict.'"

cancel ×

206 comments

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

Finally (0, Troll)

DaleHarris (1328785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475450)

We've been holding on to this power for too long. Time to actually use it against China.

Re:Finally (4, Interesting)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475496)

The military-industry complex isn't just war profiteering and lobbying; a warmongering populace is also a critical part of the complex.

Re:Finally (5, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475726)

And.... the internet was supposed to be a neutral utopia for spreading ideas and knowledge.
Yet somehow we made it a battlefield.

Re:Finally (5, Insightful)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475800)

Network connectivity doesn't change human nature. When you move civilization onto the internet, you don't get a utopia, you just get better data transfer.

Re:Finally (4, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476400)

And part of human nature seems to be to frame everything as a kind of "war". But this can backfire. Back in 1964, here in the US, President Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty". Quickly, millions of poor people started asking where they could go to surrender. That war was quietly shelved soon thereafter.

We just need to find as clever a way to respond to the US government declaring war on the Internet. Is there a good way to make us all look like opponents, so we can surrender and get funds for reconstruction?

Anyone got any good ways to phrase this?

Re:Finally (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476602)

If only they'd declared a war on pirating....

Re:Finally (5, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475826)

The moment nations - any nations, US included - decided that the Internet was territory that could be owned rather than a virtual complex of ideas where data merely happened to reside in certain machines at certain times and where wiring merely happened to be the transport of choice for now, cyberwarfare was inevitable. That the Internet has adopted a spanning tree topology in many places, rather than a mesh topology, has worsened things. It's very easy to set up roadblocks on a spanning tree, it's much much harder to shut down a mesh.

(If you can't own it and can't prevent others using it, then you have nothing you can fight over. Ownership and conflict are only possible where resource denial is possible. Which is fine for end-points, I've no problem with end-points being owned and governed, but it should never have become fine for the backbone.)

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476062)

And porn. Don't forget porn.

Re:Finally (3, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476414)

Uh.. neutral utopia for spreading ideas and knowledge? I'm pretty sure that (D)ARPA had no intention of neutrality in terms of who was "supposed to" benefit from the communication.....

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476462)

WTF? The Internet was a war machine from birth. Not that it matters... it's a vector from which we're regularly attacked. 'Be the better man' only goes so far with hostile nations banging on your door.

Americans (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475456)

may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend

You see nothing wrong with this. Then you wonder why the world hates you.

Re:Americans (-1, Flamebait)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475538)

may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend

You see nothing wrong with this. Then you wonder why the world hates you.

Congratulations on proving you're no better than the redneck sister-fuckers who claim all Muslims are terrorists, with your blanket generalization.

Now fuck off.

Re:Americans (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475678)

Congratulations on proving you're no more coherent than random commenters on YouTube.

Re:Americans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475988)

Go fuck yourself.

Re:Americans (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475710)

Generalization? He didn't generalize, he explained why others might generalize.
Good job reinforcing the stereotype that Americans are illiterate ignorants though.

Re:Americans (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475768)

Bad analogy. Congressmen aren't self-selected (like terrorists are), they are elected, so they actually DO represent mainstream American sentiment. (Just like how the whole don't-blame-American-citizens-for-Iraq argument stopped making sense after Bush won re-election.)

Re:Americans (5, Informative)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475870)

(Just like how the whole don't-blame-American-citizens-for-Iraq argument stopped making sense after Bush won re-election.)

It did?

By my math there were just over 62 million votes counted for Bush in 2004. Estimated population of the United States in 2004 was just shy of 293 million. If simple division serves me right then that means over 78% of the U.S. population did not vote for Bush in 2004 (either by voting for someone else, not voting, or being ineligible). That is hardly a large enough number for anyone to do what they want and claim some sort of democratic mandate.

A Republic is not a Democracy. While the people who voted for him might have backed his policies that hardly means "America" did. The same can be said for any U.S. president.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476026)

You are a bit off....There were 293 million people, but only 173 million registered voters, and 122 million which turned out: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

64 million is more than half of 122 million, but not much more.

Re:Americans (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476202)

"By my math there were just over 62 million votes counted for Bush in 2004. Estimated population of the United States in 2004 was just shy of 293 million. If simple division serves me right then that means over 78% of the U.S. population did not vote for Bush in 2004 (either by voting for someone else, not voting, or being ineligible)."

What's your point? That the only people who have to abide by the laws signed by the president are the people who voted for him?

In the last election I voted in, I didn't vote for the guy who won, but he still represents me nonetheless.

Re:Americans (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476440)

Anyone eligible to vote but who didn't should be considered to have voted for "whoever won" If they wanted to support anything else, the could have. On Voting day, it's everywhere.

Re:Americans (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476784)

Americans could have put a stop to it by voting against it, period. That's all they had to do. So whether they assented actively or passively is a very slight difference.

Re:Americans (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476176)

"Then you wonder why the world hates you." - it's exactly what non-US world sees. Right to defend US cyberspace means preventive war against anything that threatens the interests of powerful US people, i.e. drugs, child porn, etc. (this list hold for most countries, anyway)
Therefore it ony serves plundering of natural resources elsewhere and killing those who oppose. Today's regime in US is parallel to Stalin's, beacuse the amount of fear it generates world-wide and daily, applying it's power structures or sometimes even by not using them (police, military, economy, slavery, drugs), is pretty much the same and will soon exceed achievements of Hitler's regime. But, anyway, China will take over, soon, if not already done...

Re:Americans (2)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476340)

... Congressmen ... are elected, so they actually DO represent mainstream American sentiment. ...

Correction: congressmen on both sides of the isle are elected, but for the most part do not represent mainstream American sentiment. They mostly represent the interests of the people (corporations and their lobbyists) who finance their election campaigns; a group that makes up only about 0.05% of the U.S. population.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476552)

The problem in America is we have a duopoly for political parties. They draw the district lines to ensure as little influence from opposing views as possible. They control state legislatures so getting any third party on the ballot in all 50 states is all but an impossibility. Our government is corrupt. But few of us actually suffer so we don't do much to change things. Voting is pretty pointless. To be sure the populace could revolt, but like I said, we don't suffer much. It's only when there's nothing left to lose that things will change.

I think It's more related (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475588)

To the penchant for destabilising democratically elected governments and installing puppet dictators in order to acquire resources and dominate regions militarily.

Re:I think It's more related (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475724)

To the penchant for destabilising democratically elected governments and installing puppet dictators in order to acquire resources and dominate regions militarily.

It was the peer pressure... all the cool kids had colonial empires and we wanted to be cool too. But before we could find acceptance, fashion changed and the US is now wearing the equivalent of global bell bottoms.

Re:Americans (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475666)

Seem to like our money well enough. If you *really* hate us so much then stop coming around with your hand out.

Re:Americans (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476420)

America is the world's debtor, not the world's creditor. It is you who "owes" us money.

Re:Americans (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476660)

Depends on which country you are talking about. We owe China a lot of money. On the other hand, plenty of countries in Africa and the Middle East "borrow" money from us all the time (which we likely will never get back). So you're right, America is not the world's creditor. We don't really lend that much money at all, since lending implies that we'll get it back.

(This post sounds a little like flamebait, and I apologize for that. I'm not trying to anger anyone, just trying to point something out).

Re:Americans (5, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476728)

Oh I'm far from angry, just wanted to open the poster's eyes a little. If you have a crack addict who borrows 100K from the Mafia, and gives away 20K to his "buddies" while spending the other 80K on a Porsche he somehow got financing for, more cocaine, bling, and other frivolous things, then you have a fair analogy. Instead of crack read oil. Instead of Porsche and bling read any number of entitlement and useless spending (including inflated "defense" spending that gets you multi-million dollar drones that can be easily captured by Iran), etc. You would not say that this person is rich. In fact you would say that this person is going to be in deep trouble when the Mafia decide to collect. And his "friends" are fair-weather friends of convenience. And it's useless to say "I told you so", because that person is damned certain that there is nothing wrong with their life-style.

Re:Americans (1)

EricX2 (670266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475796)

Who says we see nothing wrong with this?

Re:Americans (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475930)

The most blatantly obvious thing wrong with this, 'FALSE FLAG'. The utterly false escalation of internet cracking to bring in news laws to monitor everyone all of the time.

Hell, they will make having an internet connection compulsory, as well as a web cam and microphone.

This thinks far more about the 1% attempting an all out assault on the freedoms of the 99%. To silence and control them, to limit their speech, to attack their freedoms via what was the people's internet.

The most obvious distortion of reality, if the use of computer network cracking is to be based upon the same laws for the use of more destructive means of warfare including nuclear weapons, then just cut the fucking cable from the offending country, fucking hell, problem solved. What the fuck is so hard about that and they already have that law is place.

Re:Americans (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475834)

And the world will continue to hate us. All the more reason to not give a shit what others think.

Re:Americans (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475968)

As opposed to the other nations that are already doing that, just without any formal declaration. I would be very surprised indeed if China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Israel and others weren't already engaging in offensive operations online.

OTOH, why let the likely truth prevent such bigoted trash talk from being posted.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476206)

Who said we don't see anything wrong with this? Our opinions are irrelevant.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476384)

A good offense is the best defense. If we're under attack, you're damn right we'll conduct a counter-attack, where prudent - including cyberspace.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476386)

An an American I will suggest that next time you should bold the words offensive and defend as it would appear that many of my fellow Americans posting here completely missed your point. Perhaps even link the words to an online dictionary as many will think the words mean the same thing.

Offense to Defend? (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475498)

Clear and present danger?

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Offense to Defend? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475652)

What could possibly go wrong?

You could plug the Ethernet cable into the power supply ...

Re:Offense to Defend? (5, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475970)

Hmm. The ID10Ts have finished building their cyber-command, staffed it with the *cough* best *cough* IT that the marines can offer, and they want to give it a spin. They're looking for a fight. Were I a general, I would not stop b*tch-slapping these people until my hand got tired, then I'd have one of my assistants take over for me: what kind of steroid-abusing, minimum legal IQ, closed-minded, in-bred, patriot (put charitably) goes looking to start a war during a time of relative peace? We have nothing to gain from this venture, and everything to lose.

Has the nation gone full-retard? This kind of behavior is supposed to be out of your system by the time you hit 18, cropping up only when you get a speeding ticket, had a bad day at the office, or are at home with the family for the holidays.

Don't get me wrong, if you need to protect something material, the US military is some of the best. But like Space, Cyber-Space is specifically un-militarized, with only a handful of shadow games being played by somewhat disinterested players (that the internet was started by a military project is not lost on me ^_^). It's a completely different battlefield, with completely different rules, and it's not going to be helped by this addition. The very action of trying to play war with the internet means the US military will succeed where its politicians have failed: the US will end up getting cut off from the global internet, as countries move to protect themselves. This action is the internet equivalent of parking some Soviet ICBMs in Cuba!

You know, once upon a time, the United States had a Department of War. It's job was to ensure that our country was always at war with some other country. We ditched it in favor of a Department of Defense. I am having trouble telling the difference now.

 

Re:Offense to Defend? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476292)

You know, once upon a time, the United States had a Department of War. It's job was to ensure that our country was always at war with some other country. We ditched it in favor of a Department of Defense. I am having trouble telling the difference now.

Maybe the US mostly won its wars back then when they were waged against other nations and to defend the rights of US citizens. Today it looks different: both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs look like wars waged to a considerable extent against the rights of US citizens. No wonder they're not going well.

Re:Offense to Defend? (4, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476744)

Agreed.

Life has been curious to me. When I was much younger, I was rabidly anti-drug, and considered the taking of one to mess with the clarity of thought. Having grown older, and been to college, I've found that it's very easy to be against something, when you've had no experience with it. Experience tends to teach us the flaws in our thinking.

As for this War on Terror, the story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Quite a few people are milking the government right now with paranoid delusions of illusory enemies, offering solution after solution in bad faith, administering placebos or poison instead of medicine, congratulating each other as they plunder the public's wallet. Were I not dimly aware that I might be nearby when something truly terrible arrives, and the government is either tapped out or the populace apathetic, I might enjoy watching these people as they try to flee something unthinkable. Hopefully the weight of their ill-gotten proceeds will weigh them down, long enough for something like Mr. Market to catch up to them. Pity that karma does not have the accuracy that some of our laser-guided projectiles sport; I hate to think of how many people are suffering because of this nonsense.

SOPA? (3, Insightful)

Lexx Greatrex (1160847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475518)

"Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict."

I read the War Powers Resolution is also effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in Internet censorship .

Time for the voting public to purge this misguided house of government of all its privilege and narcissism.

Re:SOPA? (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475544)

Why? It'll be far more fun sitting back and watching them fall flat on their faces when they realize the internet doesn't work the way they think it does, despite them inventing it!

Re:SOPA? (2)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475560)

Or better yet, when the internet 'self-heals' to exclude them entirely

Re:SOPA? (3, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475670)

While that will be entertaining to see, this beast, having lost its head, will stagger around and flail its limbs, catching others unawares, before it finally succumbs to death.

Re:SOPA? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476034)

Contrary to your statement the internet doesn't just self heal, as long as you take down the correct bit of infrastructure somebody has to go out and fix it. Moreover they have to recognize that something's gone wrong and that can take time if the damage is subtle enough.

Beyond that, you need people to go out and fix the connectivity to a particular region. Sure the internet at large just routes around it, but I can't imagine that even the hawks in the DoD are suggesting that we take the entire net down, most likely they'll be wanting to remove a country from the net as completely as possible.

Ultimately you don't have to take them off line completely for it to be effective, limiting them to a connection that you can slip propaganda into is quite useful at times. As is reminding the population how tenuously seated the government is.

Re:SOPA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476748)

I think what he was getting at was that, while the country is isolated, the rest of the world would have more of a say as to how whatever layers and protocols that would come in to replace the internet would develop and that, learning from what went wrong, it would probably be more resilient to being brought down another time.

Re:SOPA? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475888)

...the internet doesn't work the way they think it does...

Yes it does. They can easily track you and take you offli

Re:SOPA? (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476042)

anyone remember NO CARRIER

Re:SOPA? (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476702)

While I agree that it will probably be a lot more entertaining for a lot of people, consider the collateral damage that will undoubtedly be inflicted against a lot of other people (ie, techs who actually understand the internet). If congress ever actually gets their heads around the idea that the internet is almost impossible to control there will be attempted crackdowns and all manner of hell before they give up.

Re:SOPA! (5, Insightful)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475646)

Yeah, who needs SOPA when you have the US military to enforce royalty payments!

Yes, it's a new age of intellectual property imperialism! Except instead of the huge royal navies of England and France fighting pirates and collecting royalties on trade routes, we'll have the DoD DDoS attacks taking down all parties that don't pony up!

It's suiting for the US, much of whose wealth and economy is now based on imaginary assets, like patents and copyrights on, well, just about anything having to do with "popular" culture or business processes. What better way to make money for nothing than to have a piece of legal paper that says that people have to pay you money for doing ${thing}s? And then having a bunch of other people fund your military, the largest in the world, to enforce those payments?

Subjugation! Success!

Re:SOPA? (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476112)

That's exactly what I thought as soon as I read the headline. Pass SOPA, allow MAFIAA to hire operators to shut down websites with nothing more than a claim of supporting terrorism.
It won't change anything regarding file-sharing - but it'll sure make the people who are spending all that money supporting politicians feel better about their large bonuses.

Congressional oversight my ass (5, Interesting)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475594)

and (2) the War Powers Resolution

Let's drop the charade. If robotic aerial bombardment doesn't constitute "war", then sending strings of ones and zeros through a series of tubes certainly doesn't count as "war". There is effectively no congressional oversight because cyber-warfare does not fall under the purview of "war" according to the executive branch. There's also no way for congress to cut funding for cyber-warfare since all the computers and networks are already paid for, and there's very little operational costs to waging a cyber war.

Re:Congressional oversight my ass (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475792)

By:

Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict

I assume they meant something more like: "debate continues" in legal journals, where scholars analyze some very interesting theoretical questions. Meanwhile, Presidents of either party don't find these theoretical questions particularly interesting, and don't consider them a significant barrier to waging war.

Re:Congressional oversight my ass (3, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475824)

We warned you people that Bush's grubbing for power would come back and bite us in the ass later on. Once power is gained, it is seldom let go of.

We warned you that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.

When will enough people listen and act?

Re:Congressional oversight my ass (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476142)

We warned you people that Bush's grubbing for power would come back and bite us in the ass later on. Once power is gained, it is seldom let go of.

We warned you that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.

o/~ One of these things is not like the others ... o/~

By "War Powers Act" you probably mean the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (the actual War Powers Acts were WW2 laws) which is intented to limit the President's ability to wage war without Congressional approval. To the degree that it functions as intended (not very well, unfortunately) it thereby serves as a check on executive power and the growth of the military-industrial complex. Those who argue that it is unconstitutional -- which regrettably includes every President from Nixon on -- are in fact attempting to subvert the Constitution by undoing its placement of the power to declare war in Congress' hands.

Re:Congressional oversight my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475952)

This is a conference report, it's not law yet. If it passes, cyberwarefare will be subject to the same legal regime as traditional forms of warfare. If Obama or succeeding presidents fail to follow the law, Congress will have to deal with that. Since they didn't enforce the War Powers Act with regards to Obama's Libyan Adventure, It goes to show that Instapundit is right [pjmedia.com] . We should only elect Republicans to the White House, because Democratic Presidents are given a free pass by the media and Congress, while Republican Presidents are held to the highest standard.

Re:Congressional oversight my ass (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476032)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it passed both houses already [govtrack.us] . All that's missing is Obama's signature.

Re:Congressional oversight my ass (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476422)

What? If it doesn't count as war, then it counts as spam, and I HATE spam! Time to build some thermonuclear spam filters...

Cyberwarfare ? (3, Insightful)

sambo_serg (2538126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475600)

Cyberwarfare is fiction.

Re:Cyberwarfare ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475932)

Cyberwarfare is fiction.

Yes - at most it causes inconvenience.

When someone hacks into a computer and causes someone to die or destroys some military asset as a direct result of that hack, then I will consider it to be "warfare".

Until then, I will take this "cyber warfare" propaganda as just that - propaganda that will justify the spending of millions of dollars on projects run by people who have the political connections.

First Motion (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475614)

This will be my first motion for all forms of government and associated militaries to be permanently banned from the internet.

Do I hear a second?

Stuxnet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475618)

Come on, they've been doing this sort of thing for a while now. This is just to legalize their previous actions.

American 'Cyber' militia? 'Cyber' arms? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475628)

Would this give the citizens of America the right to form a Cyber militia and the right to bear Cyber arms under the constitution?

Re:American 'Cyber' militia? 'Cyber' arms? (4, Interesting)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475662)

a Cyber militia

Wikileaks

Re:American 'Cyber' militia? 'Cyber' arms? (2)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475772)

No, we already have this right.

Re:American 'Cyber' militia? 'Cyber' arms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476542)

Cybermilitias of any reasonable strength will have the same problem as real militias of any strength. They will be branded as terrorists.

Anonymous quod erat demonstrandum.

"Interests" (5, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475648)

upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests

"Interests" is an interesting term. We have well defined (codified in law) ideas of who our allies and what our nation is, but interests can range anywhere from democracy to oil to bombing airplane manufacturing plants in Brazil and China to protect our (civilian) areospace industry.
 
Diplomatic cables have already revealed that we lean pretty heavily on our allies to buy Boeing and Locheed Martin products, both civilian and defense oriented. If anyone needs a reminder, we just "convinced" Japan to buy 150+ still on the drawing board F-35 stealth fighters, (things yet to fix: major fire hazards, lack of stealth, weak airframe, buggy software, bad aerodynamics) rather than the EuroFighter earlier this week, right after Kim Jong Ill died.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/japan-to-pick-lockheeds-f-35-as-new-stealth-fighter/2011/12/13/gIQAbuYUrO_story.html

North America Under Cyberattack +5, Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475650)

Why the recurring 100% packet loss in Ontario and British Columbia [internettr...report.com] ?

Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout, C.T.O. http://www.internettrafficreport.com/namerica.htm

Re:North America Under Cyberattack +5, Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476002)

North America Under Cyberattack +5, Interesting (Score:-1)

You really thought that shit would work?!

Instead of your distracting question +10, Perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476138)

Why don't you answer the question: Is North America under a cyberattack?

Secondly, why is latency in Ontario O ms? Trust me, it's a trick question.

You may now return to your Android-and-or-I-Phone toy.

Cheers!!!!

Re:Instead of your distracting question +10, Perfe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476496)

Why don't you answer the question: Is North America under a cyberattack?

I didn't because I moderated. What's your excuse, Mr. Kettle?

Secondly, why is latency in Ontario O ms? Trust me, it's a trick question.

Sure it's a trick question, not least of all because O ain't a number. I'm certainly not going to give a page hit to the tool that posted it...

You may now return to your Android-and-or-I-Phone toy.

Actually I'm still using a perfectly serviceable T68. Did you have a point, or was that your best attempt at a witty retort?

Cheers!!!!

Thanks, this IPA is actually quite drinkable; it's proven to be a pleasant surprise from our office's secret Santa.

Aggressive Action? (1)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475664)

We already take aggressive actions willy-nilly, with little oversight. What's another platform to perform it on going to matter?

I suppose I'm a bit cynical.

We, the people, should be finding some way to control some of this unwarranted, aggressiveness from our government. Vote the chickenhawks out.

Debate continues? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475736)

POTUS pretty much bombs whatever the hell he wants the last few decades, and Congress always goes along as sure as they wear those stupid flag lapel pins. If you're debating the state of affairs in any way, I want what you're smoking. POTUS has warmongering power at the behest of the MHC, which needs a good war to clean out inventory and stock the new fall line of bombs every few seasons. Debate? You've gotta be kidding me.

Star Trek Redux (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475742)

So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.

Re:Star Trek Redux (2)

k6mfw (1182893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475848)

So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.

Yep. To make the battles more "clean" (reduce collateral damage) they used "computer games" to carry out battles. Reason is they have been at war for 500 years and come to an agreement to make the war not as devastating. Program would tally up casulties and each side by agreement have to send some of their people into these tubes that vaporizes them. Capt Kirk blasted a portion of their computer system that also brought down both offense and defense computer (and probably severed the comm link with the other planet). President of the planet they were on was shocked, "Do you know what this means?!?! Other side will see it as a breach of the agreement and will think we are in for serious war!" Kirk said, "yes! and you better start building guns, bombs and another weapons!" He then said, "or an alternate is you can have peace with the other side." President didn't know anything else as they have been at war for 500 years and tradition prevails, he would not know what to do [no skills to wage peace]. A dipolmat was with the landing party at the time offered his services to help make a peace treaty.

Re:Star Trek Redux (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475884)

So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.

I recall the episode you are referring to. IIRC, the real war was destroying too much, so they simulated the war inside a computer instead. And then based on the results of the simulation, the people that were in an attacked area were forced to commit suicide.

It was Season 1, A Taste of Armageddon [wikipedia.org]

Why use LOIC when you can actually build one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475750)

Bring back Star Wars!

WoW (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475758)

Upon reflection, I realize now that the military is sick and tired of IEDs, and would prefer to spend all day raiding, in front of a monitor.

Geneva Convention (5, Insightful)

lkcl (517947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475778)

somebody in the u.s. hasn't been reading the geneva convention. if the U.S. is hell-bent on linking the words "cyber" and "warfare", then the U.S. had better be ready for the consequences. the consequences of "declaring war" on another country are very very simple: under the Geneva Convention, a declaration of war legitimises and grants the right for any citizen of the country being attacked to immediately take offensive action, no matter where they are, against citizens and against all soil of the aggressors.

in other words, should the United States respond with physical force against another country's citizens just because a computer which was wide open to the world (with 3 letter passwords), that is an "act of war", and the citizens of the country being attacked are automatically granted the right to take immediate offensive violent action against any United States Citizens or against any United States "property" and soil.

in other words, this is an incredibly stupid thing for the United States Government to be doing. especially given that many people in the United States Military have absolutely no idea what constitutes a cyber attack, and they certainly don't understand that 3 letter passwords are an invitation to go "cooeeee! i 0wn youuu!"

madness. absolute madness.

Re:Geneva Convention (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475820)

By their actions in Guantanamo Bay I do not think that the USA is concerned about the Geneva Convention.

Re:Geneva Convention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475842)

It's not offense, it's a pre-emptive defense.

Re:Geneva Convention (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476342)

It's not robbing a bank, it's a premature withdrawal.

Re:Geneva Convention (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476700)

First, the Geneva Convention never gives someone the right to take violent action against all of a nation's citizens. Noncombants are afforded protection under the conventions. You should cite which convention you have derived your information from. Since the basis of your argument is false, the rest does not matter. However, I will state that if the U.S. began treating cyberwarfare as actual war, then any physical force against another country would most likely be accompanied by attempting to sever the country's lines of communication as well. Besides, all this does is address the fact that China (et al) has been pursuing aggressive cyber attacks against foreign intelligence for some time.

Screw effective. How about Constitutional? (5, Funny)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475816)

The Constitution does not give Congress authority to delegate their war-making powers to ANYONE else, including the President.

If this can legitimately be considered "warfare", then there is no question whatever that it is unconstitutional. The "War Powers Act" notwithstanding... it is unconstitutional, too. You can't use one unconstitutional law to justify another.

If Congress hasn't declared war, then it's not a Constitutional (legal) war. Period. And that means we haven't had a legal war in over 60 years.

Re:Screw effective. How about Constitutional? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475854)

Fun fact: The United States has only formally declared war 5 times!
(our last one was WWII, but that's closer to 70 years now)

Re:Screw effective. How about Constitutional? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476046)

"Fun fact: The United States has only formally declared war 5 times!
(our last one was WWII, but that's closer to 70 years now)"

Precisely my point.

Re:Screw effective. How about Constitutional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475936)

The constitution does not define the wording of a declaration of war. "Yeah, nuke them if you want," is a completely valid declaration of war as much as "we the whateverith Congress decide as our second unanimous act (after our first act of giving ourselves pay raises next term) to declare war on Elbonia."

Re:Screw effective. How about Constitutional? (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476012)

"The constitution does not define the wording of a declaration of war. "Yeah, nuke them if you want," is a completely valid declaration of war as much as "we the whateverith Congress decide as our second unanimous act (after our first act of giving ourselves pay raises next term) to declare war on Elbonia.""

Perhaps. But handing the decision-making power to the President is not a declaration of war of ANY kind. It is nothing more than abdication of responsibility.

horay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475828)

Now the lamer skript kiddies can get a nice comfy job while the rest of us work for a living.

SELinux (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475838)

yum install skynet

Oh boy, here we go (5, Insightful)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475850)

The nationalization and segmentation of Internet has begun. It was a nice place with no borders and equal for everyone. But of course, old power-greedy bastards has awoken and now want to subjugate everyone under their rule, claim "territories" that they own and build armies to fight with each other. And common folks as always are blinded with "patriotism" propaganda, while really are just used as a resource for some self-proclaimed sociopathic "leaders". Since the dawn of ages. Humanity, will you ever learn?

Re:Oh boy, here we go (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476808)

It didn't begin here. It has been happening for years. When China, Korea, Iran, Egypt, or any other country blocks the internet you ignore it. That is claiming territory, just as much as building a wall. The internet was never neutral, people just got away with what they wanted.

kinetic capabilities and bodily fluids (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 2 years ago | (#38475856)

Don't know what it means, but sounds great.

bjd

I certainly hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38475886)

... that the "powers that be" make a PowerPC Mac version of whatever diabolical schemes they want to engage in. Otherwise we old Mac users might feel left out.

In Other News, Congress Puts up Myspace Page (2)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476168)

Those cutting edge Senators and Representatives have a hunch that China and others may one day consider developing such a cyberwar capacity, and want the USA to be the first to develop it.

Time for Darknet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38476236)

Local, direct connection based. Back to the present day equivalent of BBS's. They were around for a reason and haven't really died, just become less noticeable in the great "interweb" hype.

Covert Cyberwar Yeilds Destruction Of Worst Enemy (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476418)

Oops.....We just Hacked Ourselves, destroyed our own prosperity, and captured our own freedom. Now that's a victory for self defeat.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?