×

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!

FBI Warns Congress of Terrorist Hacking

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the backscatter-scan-now-required-to-log-in-to-facebook dept.

Government 243

An anonymous reader writes "Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), yesterday warned Congress of terrorist hacking. He believes that while terrorists haven't hacked their way into the U.S. government yet, it's an imminent threat. Mueller said, 'To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

243 comments

Read: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292523)

Anonymous is finally getting theirs.

Re:Read: (-1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292619)

No. Anon and their script kiddie playmates are once again ruining the internet for everyone else.

Re:Read: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292705)

No, Congress critters are trying to ruin the internet. Anonymous or not, anyone with a clue could see this coming from a mile away, it was only a matter of time.

Also, Anonymous has been around a while and my internet was never any different until corporations and congress people started fucking with it.

Re:Read: (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292937)

Also, Anonymous has been around a while...

Yes they have. And they have been stealing and selling credit card numbers the whole time.

Re:Read: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293269)

And here i thought that was mostly Russian mob types.

I don't doubt that what you say is true to a point, I still fail to understand why that make them terrorists. And how far does it go, are we going to just keep going down the list of crimes until will get to something like writing your name on the sidewalks wet cement gets you labeled a terrorist.

How about this, we just say everybody's a terrorist and the constitution applies to nobody except those that you personally think it should apply to. how about that.

Re:Read: (2, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293443)

they're terrorists because they make the FBI look like a bunch of assholes when their internal comms get hacked and leaked.

Re:Read: (-1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293693)

They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.

Like or not, they fit the very definition of terrorist.

While the broader definition of terrrorize is debated, Anon is center, far away from the gray edges.

ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Re:Read: (2)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293579)

There are good and bad people inside of ever organization and to always point out the negative side of things is playing right into the PR machine's hands. Have you ever seen a news story about the CP websites they have helped bring down? Of course not.

Read all streams of news even if they are sometimes referred to or labelled as crazy. I would rather be over informed and make my own opinion than under informed and have my opinion made up for me.

Re:Read: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292721)

No. Anon and their script kiddie playmates are once again ruining the internet for everyone else.

Like bad drivers are ruining cars for everyone else? Like bad barbers are ruining hair for everyone else? Like alcoholics are ruining wine for everyone else? Come on, maybe a government can "ruin" the Internet. Maybe. And only until the dark-net gets critical mass.

What's six inches long and isn't gonna get sucked (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292655)

Whitney Houston's crack pipe.

Fear= More Funding (5, Insightful)

plopez (54068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292541)

Terrorism is already a funding black hole. This reeks of inter agency rivalry.

Re:Fear= More Funding (1)

willpb (1168125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293085)

He believes that while terrorists haven't hacked their way into the U.S. government yet, it's an imminent threat

Government by anonymous for the lulz ftw
I have haxx0r ur gov now all ur base are belong to me. Muah ha ha ha.
Now that's a great way to throw all accountability out the window.
Suppose a trillion dollars mysteriously disappears from the budget, Ooops we got hacked, I told you we needed more money to prevent this sort of thing.

The only logical response (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292555)

Congressman: How do you suggest we proceed in fighting this threat?

Mueller: We need to shut down all torrent sites and arrest anyone posting copyrighted clips on YouTube.

Congressman: Would my very generous constituents at Sony like to comment?

Sony: We think this is an excellent approach to fighting the muslim horde, Congressman. We'll wire the usual campaign contribution to your super PAC.

Congressman: Well, that settles it then. Would anyone like to offer an opposing view?

EFF: Uh, Senator, we would like to point ou...

Congressman: Well, since there is no opposition, looks like you have your funding Director. Happy hunting.

Re:The only logical response (5, Insightful)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292769)

I wanted to mod Parent as funny. But I have a very sad feeling its true.

Re:The only logical response (1, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292965)

...I have a very sad feeling its true.

When congress chooses to ignore a side of an issue they don't let the opposition into hearings at all, like the recent contraception hearing that only had men testify. So the EFF in the original post would never be present to be cut off by the congressman.

Re:The only logical response (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293619)

huh?

Re:The only logical response (1)

nunojsilva (1019800) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293017)

Well, oh, well...

The USFG owes me a couple new desks. Sometimes they make me headdesk so hard it just... breaks my desk.

Two things that I can't get out of my mind right now:

  • If this is the *director* of the bureau, what will a regular special agent be like?
  • Has it ever occured to the director of the FBI to notify the congress that people may, for example, kill people? Or maybe he's better off warning them chemicals can be used as weapons. Or even warn them guns may be used to kill people!

Somehow I feel Jeane Dixon is in a better shape to be DFBI than this guy...

The FBI is admitting their hacking activities? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292561)

Would be nice if Congress ordered them to stop it but more likely they will ask for more dirt on their opponents. Discovered or manufactured will be fine with them.

The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292565)

Yet another reason to give up all of our civil rights, privacy, and freedoms in the name of catching these "terrorists"!!!

Plus, over the past ten years, $500B/year on "black" programs to catch "terrorists".

And all because ten years ago 3000 people died (that's an average of 300/year) and two buildings were taken down: tragic, but a very small one compared to the 30,000 people who die every year in automobile crashes in the US - and we don't see $500B/year being spent on that!

Terrorism is just an excuse to usurp our freedoms and enable the government to take control of us. The threat is just not as big as they make it out to be - certainly not big enough to justify the massive reaction to 9/11 and the loss of all of our freedoms and privacy.

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (1, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293123)

Can you provide a citation for that $500B/yr figure? The entire US national security budget is under $900B/yr, so I find it rather hard to believe that more than half that is spent on "black programs to catch terrorists".

You can make your points without lying to people. You should make your points without lying to people.

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (1)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293299)

Can you provide a citation for that $500B/yr figure? The entire US national security budget is under $900B/yr, so I find it rather hard to believe that more than half that is spent on "black programs to catch terrorists".

You can make your points without lying to people. You should make your points without lying to people.

You actually think that the US government publicly TRACKS the money it spends on illegal programs?? There's a reason they call them 'black' programs. Just a few accounting tricks, and no one will ever miss or question that missing $450B

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293409)

So let me get this straight. You think that the United States has spent FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS of unbudgeted, untraceable money over the past decade. Money that was not borrowed from anyone, but was just "printed out" and handed out to big corporations like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Money that those corporations then kept off their own books, since it hugely exceeds the combined revenues of every major military contractor I know of.

Is this some sort of joke? You can't seriously believe this. Either you haven't thought it through, or you are so blinded by your own hatred that you can't even perform basic arithmetic.

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (5, Informative)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293609)

$6.6 billion in hundred dollar bills literally "fell off a plane" and disappeared in Iraq [latimes.com]; and that's something they'll actually admit to. Five trillion dollars is probably a bit much, but really, who knows how many billions have been pumped into the black hole of "anti-terror" technologies?

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293745)

IT's alla counted for, and rather tightly. You are suffering from the keyhole effect.

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (4, Informative)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293629)

Where did you get 5 Trillion? It is 500billion (which is still an incredible amount to claim when you consider the base budget for the department of defense and war activities is 676billion, I was going to throw a dhs document but this terrible source actually does a good job of putting everything into context: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/real-us-national-security-budget-1-trillion [motherjones.com] .)

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (2)

kryliss (72493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293705)

You don't really expect us to believe that they pay $400 for a hammer or $2500 for a toilet seat do you?

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293337)

With $900B/yr total in the national security budget, It would GREATLY surprise me if less than 75% of that was "for fighting terrorism".

It will also never fail to amaze me that the US is more terrorist than the "terrorism" it fights. Over-zealous law enforcement, big media, oppressive (if not, it's nearly there) government... Oh, we also attack countries at random, without a declaration of war.

I'm not for terrorism of any kind, but fighting one type of terrorism does not excuse committing another!

Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293199)

Terrorism is just an excuse to usurp our freedoms and enable the government to take control of us.

I don't think there's any person or people who are actually planning to use terrorism as an excuse to take our freedoms away. I think it's more of petty little people using terrorism, drugs, kiddie porn as an excuse to get more money for their departments, increase their little fiefdoms, and make themselves feel more important. And there may even be some real legitimate concern for out security.

But our freedom were really that important for the bulk of us Americans, we'd see a grass roots movement like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street putting the heat on Congress and the rest of government to cut the shit.

Sure there is some outrage - like the TSA rape scanners - but nothing that has Congress shaking in their boots like the Tea Party has done.

I don't agree with everything they stand for, but fuck'in A! They sure did make a hell of a difference in Congress. I have never seen Congress change so much.

Now if we can get Americans as steamed up about unnecessary government surveillance and other unnecessary erosion of our Civil Liberties (I think folks need to understand that freedom of religion and right to bare arms are not our only rights we need to protect - there are other Amendments after the First and Second).

Until then, the only people who are to blame for our freedoms beign taken away are ourselves.

Depends on definition of terrorist (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292595)

Look, I actually have been on counter-terrorism ops back in my Army days.

The problem is the FBI has a tendency to label people who hack music as terrorists, in addition to the Dangerous Killing People terrorists who ARE the real threat.

Giving up your Rights and Freedoms won't make you safer, only less.

Re:Depends on definition of terrorist (0)

Zrako (1306145) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293287)

Giving up your Rights and Freedoms won't make you safer, only less.

This reminds me of one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Meh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292601)

I've seen the computer skills of people from the Middle East. I'm not concerned.

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292631)

Didn't hackers have complete control of NASA and isnt NASA an agency of the US Gov't?

Nervous (4, Interesting)

mws1066 (1057218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292653)

Always get nervous when reading stuff like this - I'm sure they'll use it an excuse to regulate the Internet for everyone, not just so-called terrorists. Remember: freedom isn't free. Also: war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc.

Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292657)

"We plan on getting some dope to upload a virus that we contracted Palantir to write so we can theatrically take down 'his' operation."

A noun a verb and terrorism (3, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292709)

How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?

Where is the public outrage, political focus and trillions of dollars in ad campaigns and treatment to avert a 9/11 that more or less occurs on schedule every month of every year over the past century?

Stop wasting our money chasing boogymen and use a small fraction of it to help real people...

Hey man looks over there those Afghan poppy fields a plenty....sort of makes one wonder where all that funding for the taliban comes from now doesn't it...if only...oh nevermind...

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (5, Insightful)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292789)

It sounds like you understand the "War on Terrorism" is just a scam, after the cold war they needed a new "plot device" to keep people in line and feed the Military-Industrial complex (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY [youtube.com] ) and now they have it, the "Never Ending War on Terror (NEWT)", it can never be won because terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " and that will never ever go away.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292901)

...terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " and that will never ever go away.

Especially considering that is the US government's domestic stratagem, verbatim.

Funny how the feds see terrorists behind every door, save their own.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293657)

key issue is the US uses "violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" against governments. That's called foreign policy, when you do it against civilians, that's called terrorism.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (1)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292883)

How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?

I challenge you to provide one example of an airplane being piloted into a building because of smoking and alcohol. Stop whining about helping real people, and join the fight the help the real heroes... the ones who died in 9/11.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293041)

Either someone failed reading comprehension or that is the WORST troll I've seen in a while.

War on Terror.
War on Poverty.
War on Drugs.

I'm glad we won the war on Poverty ("started" in 1960's)... and the war on Drugs? Well, glad we obliterated drugs... how long do you think it'll take to win the war on Terror?

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293165)

You fucking idiot.
The point is 9/11 only killed 3000 people while alcohol and tobacco kill that many people every month and have been for centuries.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (4, Insightful)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293171)

The ones who died in 9/11 are dead. How can you help a dead person exactly? By devaluing the word "terrorism" until it has no real meaning at all? Or until it just means anyone the government doesn't like?

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (5, Insightful)

thelexx (237096) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293393)

How are they heroes for getting murdered? I'm pretty sure not a single one of them was thinking, "Good, now I get to lay down my life for, um, something*...!"

* = coming to work that day? being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

You don't put someone on the 'hero' pedestal for those kind of reasons. A hero is someone you look up to and want to emulate, in common parlance anyway. What is there about those people that falls into those kind of categories?

Excepting the ones who had moments of selflessness trying to help others get out or were on the planes and could fight back, the bulk of those who died are simply victims. Using the term hero for anyone we feel connected to that has something bad happen to them is belittling to those who have genuinely earned it by standing on principle, willingly sacrificing themselves, etc.

And by the by, exactly how is fighting anyone going to help the dead in any fashion?

I'll take whining over senseless patriotic drivel any day.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (2)

rikkards (98006) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293717)

I think the argument could be said that the heroes on the day (police, firemen,etc) was the fact that they laid their lives down for their jobs to help others. However people forget that if they basically said "F that, I am not going in those buildings" they would have been charged as they fall under the first responder laws.
Sad thing is I really doubt the loss of lives of the rescue personnel was less than the ones rescued.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293603)

This is something i don't get. They were victims not heroes.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293643)

Not meaning to be a contrarian- but- the ones that crashed the plane instead of letting it be used as a weapon... those were heros.

The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 were innocent victims- not heroes. Why do we call someone a hero for being unfortunate to be killed whilst going innocently about their life. It is a shame. They didn't deserve it. They wern't heroes.

If walking home tonight I get gunned down by a terrorist as I walk along the street- I won't be a hero- I'd be a victim.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (1)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293719)

Why do we call someone a hero for being unfortunate to be killed whilst going innocently about their life.

"Whilst"... you've given yourself away, limey. Real Americans know the difference between heroes and victims. President Bush and Fox News called them heroes, so heroes they are.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292985)

Spending a few hundred million to assist hundreds of thousands of citizens is Socialism. Spending a few billion to enrich a hundred globe-trotting businessmen hawking security related products and services is American Capitalism.

Care to change your statement, or are you an unpatriotic, liberal media, pinko-commie, traitor terrorist?

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (2)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292991)

While I generally agree with you that the war terrorism is a vast waste of money, smoking and drinking are terrible examples. You can't, and shouldn't really try, save people from there own choices. The only time society has a right to intervene in my personal life is when it harms others.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293033)

obesity kills one hundred times as many people every year as osama bin laden did once. once.

mcdonald's is a bigger terrorist threat than china. china has learned that they don't need to invade us, just invite our corporations over to hand them technology and know how. the trade is that our companies profit from the hiring of communist slaves. seems like a sweet deal for the 1%.

Use the money to fix the bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293127)

that are alllowing the bad guys to get in.
      (Maybe even put a few OS and browser vendors in feature timeout until they clean up their act.)

That won't break the Constitution and might actually fix the problem.

Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293637)

How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?
Careful you are treading on personal liberties (this comes to you on behalf of the alcohol and tobacco lobbies)

Anyone else? (2)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292723)

Tired of the word "terrorist and/or terrorism.

Re:Anyone else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292931)

Tired of the word "terrorist and/or terrorism.

Unfortunately as we are at 'war' with terror, anyone labeled a terrorist is not an enemy combatant and thus not entitled to due process. I'm sure the wording was carefully chosen.

Which means (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292739)

anyone with even the most minimal technical ability is a suspect. Watch out Faecesbook friends, they're coming for you!

Hacking books (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292753)

I recently purchased some hacking books on amazon out of curiosity, half-realizing that this COULD put me on some watch lists I probably don't want to be on. I wonder whether I'm just being paranoid.... or if we actually got to that point already.

Re:Hacking books (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292867)

Nothing to fear, Citizen; now, if you would kindly place your hands in the yellow circles, we will proceed with the scan of your person and residence...

For your security, of course.

Re:Hacking books (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293293)

I recently purchased some hacking books on amazon out of curiosity, half-realizing that this COULD put me on some watch lists I probably don't want to be on. I wonder whether I'm just being paranoid.... or if we actually got to that point already.

It depends -- are you affiliated with a research lab that does computer security work? If yes, nobody will both you, because you are "supposed" to be reading about those sorts of things. On the other hand, if you are just a middle class worker somewhere, you are not supposed to be reading about technical things, so you will stand out as a suspect. Welcome to the land of paranoia, stupidity, and lost privacy rights.

NDAA = Everyone's A Terrorist. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292773)

From the Patriot Act (Enabling Act) to the NDAA (Treachery Act) I think I am noticing too many parallels here. When did the United States of American become the 4th Reich?

Re:NDAA = Everyone's A Terrorist. (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292905)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#National_corporatism.2C_socialism_and_syndicalism [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood [wikipedia.org]

right about the year 1819 is when the idea started to form the avalanche that really got going in the late 1800s.

also somebody please donate your leet web design skillz to this site: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/ [reclaimdemocracy.org]

Re:NDAA = Everyone's A Terrorist. (1)

denyingbelial (2014450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293113)

Is that a jab at their design, or an actual request for help? I might have time to throw my hat in.

Don't forgett the announced prefixes (1)

fredan (54788) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292807)

If only all ISP added filter to filter the announce prefixes we would have been safe from hijacking prefixes on the Internet today.

However, it turn out that the ISP:s around the world don't give a shit about it.

Terrorist, every prefix is up for grab! Just announce whatever you like and use that when you are going to hack the U.S.

Here is my original thread on NANOG on this. Please remeber that NOBODY REPLIED.

do not filter your customers - part2 [nanog.org]

Meh (0)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292825)

The "War on Terrorism" is just a scam, after the cold war they needed a new "plot device" to keep people in line and feed the Military-Industrial complex (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY [youtube.com] ) and now they have it, the "Never Ending War on Terror (NEWT)", it can never be won because terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " and that will never ever go away.

If you ever wonder just how stupid people are simple look at the news and what's broadcast to get an idea of the average intelligence of a society.

The terrorists are already *in* congress. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39292899)

n/t

Pah! (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292979)

The REAL threat is the terrorist sleeper agents that have infiltrated government itself! They want to destroy society and bring back serfdom! And they seem to be in the majority.

And also the bicyclists. (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292981)

To date, < Terrorists/Drug Lords/Chinamen/Homeschoolers > have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. <Terrorists/Drug Lords/Chinamen/Homeschoolers > have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks.

Just insert your favorite boogeyman in between the angle brackets.

Re:And also the bicyclists. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293431)

It's sad, but true. Insert any country, religion (other than atheism), or deviation from the norm, and it would not surprise me if they issued that sort of statement. It would outrage me, but not surprise me.

Good thing we are so far ahead in tech... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#39292983)

You know, since the US invests so heavily in education.

Oh wait, that's the Netherlands and Korea.

I don't buy it (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293001)

all the government crackdowns on freedom, coupled with raids on freedom fighters like anonymous and wikileaks, means that these threats only serve as pleas for the government to suspend more of our rights. i don't think i'm down with that.

Not that frightening (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293053)

If terrorists would start hacking instead of blowing up civilians, would it really be that bad?

Simple Solution (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293057)

Don't have any sensitive machines connected to the Internet. Create a completely separate and independent network for government work with all of that tracking / authentication / identification that you want. Problem solved.

You can't hack an FBI server over the Internet if there's no connection to it.

In Other News (2)

trongey (21550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293063)

The NOAA has alerted congress that air might contain invisible gasses. We cannot underestimate the threat from those gasses which in certain conditions can be accelerated in a way that will cause damage to the US infrastructure.

Terrorists are underachievers (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293131)

The damage terrorists do, even when they have their greatest successes, is as nothing when compared to the damage done by regular for-profit criminals.

Whisky kills more people than terrorism, and we here in the USA have already decided (volstead act, anyone?) that it's really not that big of a deal.

Ignore terrorists. They are useless losers who are less dangerous to you than texting drivers. You are more in danger from wild dogs than you are from terrorists.

The real terrorists are the Americans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293135)

Americans have killed more Americans than any terrorists have in the history of the United States. Think about that, Mr. Mueller.

Think stuxnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293215)

in US within any engine of progress. They could reek pure chaos. I'm down with it, with oversight of course. FBI doesn't eff up that much since J. Edgar departed. DoD got theirs

mod do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293223)

I won't bore you about who can rant it Transforms into mechanics. SoD I'm

federal bumbling ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293307)

YA know i hope the usa gets it hard no really i do like all govt websites at once everywhere , ya need to get off that high and mighty stand your on and learn we the people have had enough of the fear and warmongering

GOT IT?

way to focus on the non-threat (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293353)

China has all, but advertised their cyber attacks on the US and this is what Mueller is worried about? Get ready for naked scanners for your laptop.

ICE domain seizure == terrorist hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293611)

If one country's "terrorist" is another country's "freedom fighter", then "super-jurisdiction over anything that touches US soil" and "airline ticket, ID, bend over and drop your pants" are really a form of Western jihad.

Go ahead and disagree; nobody's listening.

shouldn't be too hard to get in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293613)

those public-sector pigs are kinda stupid

In the Internet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39293635)

The terrorists are in the Internet!! USA will have to bomb the Internet to prevent the menace!

How could terrorists make things worse? (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293663)

Cybersecurity is already a lost cause. What could terrorists do that isn't already being done by vandals, hacktivists, spies, and criminals?

We are living the worst case now.

If it's possible for terrorists to take down a national power grid, some non-terrorist loser would already have done it for the lulz.

Not happening. (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293689)

Terrorists may be poking around, but in the end, they aren't going to be very interested. Why? No visuals. Terrorists want great visuals that will make news and the blogs.

Load More 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...