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!

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the cyber-bombshell dept.

United States 415

diewlasing sends this excerpt from the NY Times: "From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet."

cancel ×

415 comments

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

Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178717)

So I guess this means we're officially at war with Iran since it was declared that acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (2)

Soilworker (795251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178773)

So the fact that stuxnet was developed by the US gov is official now ?

So they paid the 2 company to get valid hardware certificate ??

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178889)

No it's not offical. this is just a reporter's opinion sourced from conversations with people whose names he won't reveal at times he won't reveal, who know things that nobody should know. for instance, he details the exact contents of a meeting that consisted of 3 people, president Obama, vice president Biden, and (At the time) CIA director Leon Panetta. For him to have this conversation, it means he has interviewed either the president, the vice president, or Panetta on this. Fat fucking chance.

It's probably true, but no it's no way in hell close to "offical".

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179019)

I know what happened in a lot of meetings I never personally attended. Participants talk, transcripts are shared, etc. I suspect this info came second or third-hand from the people under Panetta.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Informative)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179107)

that's exactly why this isn't anything even close to offical. even assuming Panetta told his underlings what "really happened" (which itself sounds a bit dodgy for the director of the freakin CIA), second-hand or third-hand info is suspect as hell.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179139)

this isn't anything even close to offical

You waiting for the CIA to issue a formal press release on one of its secret wars? Good luck with that.

The U.S. government is corrupt. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179445)

Any government that holds secret wars is extremely corrupt. That taxpayer pays for tinkering that almost always causes more trouble, giving the secret agencies more work and more demands on the taxpayers.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179275)

This.

There are transcripts of any official high-level meetings of this sort, generally to cover the asses of everyone involved. Those transcripts are generated by somebody, collated by somebody else, then filed by yet another person, all of whom have the opportunity to read the details. Then there's the matter of the participants talking, and I can imagine Biden being the kind of guy who would go around bragging about his meetings, so... yeah, things do tend to get around a bit more than they should.

That said, this report taken as a whole doesn't pass the sniff test. I say the reporter is full of shit.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (-1, Troll)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179125)

Given that, it absolutely has to be authorized from the big O himself. Specifically, the content of the article is from a book
http://www.randomhouse.com/book/202541/confront-and-conceal-by-david-e-sanger [randomhouse.com]

This entire fucking reveal is nothing but a campaign stunt by Obama. What sort of ratfucking moron admits to intelligence ops just for a campaign boost. Oh wait, it's the chicago politician in the white house.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179251)

The kind that knows this is already public info?

Did you really think this was not the USA and Israel?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179189)

Maybe he got a transcript of the meeting from the Chinese?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179433)

Fact? I'm not yet convinced, but willing to listen.
It makes for an awesome story though, donchathink?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

Torvac (691504) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178775)

usa&israel

We have always been at war with Eastarabia! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178783)

We have always been at war with Iran, citizen.

We have always been at war with Afghanistan. Even in the 1980s, when Saint Reagan gave vast funds to our allies, the Russians, to defeat Osama Bin Laden.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Insightful)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178827)

Which brings up a interesting question: can a cyberwar escalate to a real war? If so, what would provoke that transition?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178937)

I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179095)

I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.

Yes, but there are no nuclear weapons production facilities, according to Iran. It's hard to go to war over damage to facilities that don't exist.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179153)

The hardware (nuclear installations in this case) blowing up should be sufficient, I guess.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179409)

The use of gunpowder by either party.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179447)

Apparently, it didn't. And if there will be a real war it won't be caused by the US hacking Iran but because Iran creating nukes.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178833)

We've been at war with Iran since the 1970s.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178849)

We are at war in Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179087)

The U.S. has a remarkable history of fighting people that we ourselves have trained and armed in some earlier coup. That may have something to do with the fact that meddling in other country's interest may have short-term benefit, but it can (and frequently does) backfire and produce long-term problems. Iran is a great example. We overthrow [wikipedia.org] their democratically-elected government to put in our figurehead [wikipedia.org] so we can get their oil. Worked great until 1979. Now we've spent the last 30 years with a country that despises us.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Insightful)

krammit (540755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179393)

The late, great Bill Hicks said it best: I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up."
"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."
"Pick up the gun."

Boom, boom.

"You all saw him. He had a gun."

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Funny)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178865)

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178897)

Yeah, I'm sure it does. Like it takes an act of God to create the Universe.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178943)

It used to take an act of congress to declare war. These days the president just skips the formality. Technically, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were not wars but 'conflicts'.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (5, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178955)

Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.

they were "police actions" goddamit.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178991)

Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.

they were "police actions" goddamit.

So, because they "never happened" , they don't count as losses on America's war scorecard?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Funny)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179069)

I like that line of thinking.
We're still undefeated!

well, I guess that whole war of 1812 thing is still debatable...

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179165)

We're still undefeated!

USA! USA! U.... ah, fuck it. It's not even fun done mockingly anymore.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179173)

Those wars all accomplished what our masters in the MIC wanted them to accomplish; they made big fucking piles of money. Those wars are all massive successes from their point of view, and since they're the ones calling the shots, they all WERE massive successes. The goals simply weren't what you were told.

Depends on what you mean by war (1)

Uniquitous (1037394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178967)

If by war you mean "destruction of property" then yes, I suppose you could say we're at war. But then you'd be using such an overly broad definition of "war" as to make the term useless.

Re:Depends on what you mean by war (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179309)

I believe he means that certain actions are considered "acts of war" meaning we just handed Iran a reason to say we are already at war with them.

Normally destruction of a governments property is considered an act of war. This would meet the first requirement in the UN charter for a legal war. Iran can now attack the USA stating that it is defending itself against further attacks. In reality they will not, they are just being used to make the Israelis and a subset of the American population happy.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179011)

I guess so. I don't recall Congress nor the President issuing a Declaration of War. Or is this just another of Obama's "I don't give a dam about no fucking Constitution" form of dictatorship?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179029)

acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?

Only when perpetrated by the bad guys

Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179167)

I live in Europe, and the US do seem like bad guys time and time again. They even declared war on the Netherlands for housing the International Court of Justice. How bad can you be?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179413)

Only when perpetrated by the bad guys

Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion

Apples and oranges. Iraq invaded Kuwait for 2 reasons: their oil, and they wanted better access to the Gulf. The US invaded Afghanistan in response to an attack that was made possible through the materiel and other support of the Taliban government. Iraq went into Kuwait to steal oil. What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas. You're comparing 2 different actions with 2 completely different motivations and justifications.

"Gutsy" Move (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179039)

I can see a campaign commercial now.

Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.

Re:"Gutsy" Move (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179259)

I can see a campaign commercial now.

Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.

USB key? I thought it was a Mac Book Pro ....

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179083)

You think the rules that the US declares apply to other nations, apply to the US? How naive.

Please don't stop (2, Insightful)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178729)

giving me reasons to think both the dummycrats and retardlicans are on the same side.

ps - we aren't allow on their side.

Not news (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178821)

I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"

Re:Not news (3, Insightful)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179291)

I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"

Yeah, but neither one really cares about freedom, capitalism, or free markets except when thumping their chests and running for office. Both are run by Mrs. Grundy who thinks she knows how to live your life better than you do.

Re:Not news (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179457)

Uhhh actually they are run by investors

No, no, no.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179377)

I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"

That's not how those jokes go at all.

Firstly, you have to call it Soviet Russia.
Second, the punchline has to be a reversal of the set-up, where (object) does (action) to you!

Sophisticated (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178797)

Rather than ordering more sophisticated attacks, why not just order more effective attacks?

Oh great (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178817)

begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games

Those muzzies are so stupid they'll probably not realise it is a codeword and bomb the Olympics for infecting their computers

Re:Oh great (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179091)

Every time you go to use the word "muzzie" like that, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and run the sentence through your head before you say it.

Does it still sound like a clever thing to say?

Re:Oh great (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179217)

Every time you go to use the word "muzzie" like that, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and run the sentence through your head before you say it.

Does it still sound like a clever thing to say?

Well no, it makes no sense when replaced by "Jew", as they are not stupid mental fanatics. "Muslim" is an alternative, I'll grant you that

Re:Oh great (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179453)

Jews can be just as fanatic as some Muslims can. The same with Christians, Atheists, and Hindus. They can all also be just as tolerant as the other, too. Don't blame the religion for the actions of a person, blame the individual.

Re:Oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179231)

Every time you go to use the word "muzzie" like that, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and run the sentence through your head before you say it.

Do that and you get "Jezzie".

Re:Oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179255)

begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games

bomb the Olympics

I imagine quite a few alarm bells have just gone off in the UK's GCHQ.

a Democratic administration (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178825)

has more leaks than a colander...

and one thing i've never understood: if i were the commander-in-chief and had proof positive that Iran was killing our soldiers with bombs, i'd let loose on a few select targets in Iran - but i guess we haven't had a President with an cojones in a while, have we?

Why would anyone ..... (0)

Whammy666 (589169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178835)

Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet? I'm going to assume by now that Iran has figured out that the US is trying to sabotage their equipment. You would think that Iran would take any sensitive equipment offline and avoid applying any patches from foreign sources. And why isn't this considered an act of war on the part of the US? Didn't we declare cyber sabotage as such? No wonder why we got so many countries that hate us. Do as we say, not as we do.

Re:Why would anyone ..... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178993)

They didn't. Agents infiltrated the facility, in person, in order to introduce the software.

Then, it escaped, because, allegedly, some unwitting Iranian scientist at the facility inadvertently infected his own laptop, while they were attempting to debug the centrifuges. He then brought the laptop home, as the story goes, and connected the infected laptop to the internet, using his personal residential internet connection.

Re:Why would anyone ..... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179059)

Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.

Re:Why would anyone ..... (2)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179337)

Then, it escaped, because, allegedly, some unwitting Iranian scientist at the facility inadvertently infected his own laptop, while they were attempting to debug the centrifuges. He then brought the laptop home, as the story goes, and connected the infected laptop to the internet, using his personal residential internet connection.

...

Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.

And just goes to show that even if you have the best security policies in place, some bozo is going to know better than the retards running the IT department and just do things his way.

Re:Why would anyone ..... (1, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179113)

Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet?

They didn't. Stuxnet was apparently brought into the system physically on the infected flash drives of some Russian contractors working on it.

Re:Why would anyone ..... (4, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179149)

Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet? I'm going to assume by now that Iran has figured out that the US is trying to sabotage their equipment. You would think that Iran would take any sensitive equipment offline and avoid applying any patches from foreign sources.

Have you been sleeping during the past coverage of Stuxnet, and the analysis by researchers? Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks.

Re:Why would anyone ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179169)

Like the extradition law setup with the UK... it's just a one way thing, and from what I understand no evidence is required!

But don't worry it's not just the US that's hated now, it's anyone that collaborates too.

First thoughts (1)

Chrondeath (757612) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178847)

First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?

Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.

Why This Misconception of Obama? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178979)

First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?

Well, let's see ... would Obama be the kind of person to do this? His track record so far [nytimes.com] :

Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Now considering all that, um, I think ordering a speed up of cyberattacks on Iran where no one dies might be something he does on a whim over coffee on a given morning.

Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.

That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen [nytimes.com] . But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (1)

DroolTwist (1357725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179035)

Peace through superior firepower.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (5, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179089)

In a way you are right - perception trumps reality. However, Obama's also chose his targets well. Unlike Bush which steamrolled his way into a bad situation with Iraq, Obama actually put some thought into the exit scenarios before pushing ahead with his agenda covertly. That contributes to the efficacy in these relatively low-key operations.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (0, Offtopic)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179157)

That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen [nytimes.com]. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...

And all those Code Pink, ANSWER, and other that were "protesting the war" are now silent, proving that they were not really protesting war, just the last letter of the word. They were offended that someone with that letter after their name was "occupying" the White House.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (2)

An Ominous Coward (13324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179331)

Code Pink has continued its protests and movement activities, targeting both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama administration officials, over the continued wars and insufficient domestic spending.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179365)

Or they have different opinons on different wars?
Being fought in different ways.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179385)

They still seem pretty active to me.... not sure where you are getting the idea that they are now silent.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (1)

Fosterocalypse (2650263) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179387)

First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable? I was thinking the same thing throughout the entire article. Especially since it is all spreading saying it is confirmed that the US is behind it. I was also wondering how the reporter got the exact quotes of Obama and Biden ....If this was so classified how is this person getting "Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.” "

Doesn't surprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178851)

Really doesn't surprise me, It's not about nuclear enrichment or any other propaganda the politicians spew, it's about a one world government Iran won't play ball neither would Iraq or Afghanistan, Libya or Syria and countless other countries, they send in agents to negotiate with the leader of the country and when that fails they go to plan b, start an uprising the dictatorship gets overthrown and then all hail democracy a friend of the US and there allies gets into power FUCKUSA

hypocrisy (4, Insightful)

joe545 (871599) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178881)

With one hand, attack the nuclear computer systems of another country and with the other hand, demand extradition and decades of imprisonment for those who break into your systems to have a look around.

Re:hypocrisy (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178907)

America represents all that is good, remember? Any attack on America, no matter how insignificant, is an attack on good and is therefore evil.

Re:hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178957)

That's correct. The sentiment is rare since this site is filled with anti-American hatred. Those who post here should have it come up during clearance investigations, just like a foreign contact would.

Re:hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179119)

I think having a Slashdot UID is grounds for being denied any level of clearance, but simply trolling the site anonymously is just a warning mark.

Re:hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179147)

you fool, he is joking.

Re:hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179313)

The sentiment is rare since this site is filled with anti-American hatred

Which ones are the anti-americans? The ones who are angry that America is falling? Or the ones who are happy with being #182 ("Well at least we're not north korea!")

Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178917)

A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.

Re:Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179005)

*cough* election year *cough*

Olympic Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178947)

When are the IOC going to sue them for trademark infringement like they do everyone else..?

Re:Olympic Games? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179043)

The US is bankrupt (some would say "in more ways than one"), so they could sue, but they wouldn't get anything.

IT'S A GOOD THING !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178951)

It's not a bad thing, unless you are one of the 666 persians on this board using your Siemens-sold PCs. Let me hear what you (in the regime, not regular people) have to say about gettig your cyber asses kicked up side down.

Simple counter-attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178953)

Surely all that has to be done is a complaint about the misuse of the trademarked phrase "Olympic Games" and they'd have to cease-and-desist?

well at least we now know (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178971)

who wrote stuxnet

Unnamed Sources? (5, Insightful)

Post-O-Matron (1273882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178973)

I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".

Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?

Re:Unnamed Sources? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179013)

I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".

Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?

The NYTimes is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Re:Unnamed Sources? (5, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179243)

Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?

This is Slashdot. We don't need evidence if the story confirms our prejudices.

Where are all the naysayers (4, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178981)

When Stuxnet came out, every time someone posted that it was likely the creation of Israel and/or the U.S., they were greeted by a surprising number of deniers who were trying to claim it was Russia or Saudi Arabia, or maybe that Iran *themselves* created it, etc. Of course, this was insane. But there seem to be a LOT of people out there who have their head buried in the sand when it comes to U.S./Israeli intelligence activities in Iran. I bet even now if I were to say that Mossad had assassinated all those Iranian nuclear scientists, there would be several idiots who would jump up and claim it was someone else, or that Iran had just staged the assassinations.

Re:Where are all the naysayers (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179323)

The people you talk about are probably on the payroll, we had some forums once and every time we got a little anti American or anti Isreal two posters would always pop up and defend them. It seemed it was their only posts ever. Now eventually me and a friend did some research and found out there are large numbers of people employed to just give Isreal and the USA good press on the net.

Obama is a reader (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178999)

I'm sure he's read this book [amazon.com]

I am ashamed to be an american (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179057)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

Every single thing that we complain about Iran being is our fucking fault and now we blatantly continue with our evil foreign policy.

Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.

Olympic Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179063)

So was Stuxnet just one of the games and Duqu another?

If so, how many games are there in an Olympic event?

Less concerned about war, more about retaliation (2)

adosch (1397357) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179065)

I'm less concerned about going to 'troops-on-the-ground' war with Iran than I am having this Stuxnet-a-la-Flame end back up in the United States lap that cripples some of our infrastructure. Obama has cracked the egg on remote warfare with this cyber-terrorism code slingers and the uber ramp up of drone usage from the end of the Bush era.

FTFA, our officials should have a good check on the premise that cyber warfare's shock value of implementation is very unexciting. It's different when you have physical assets to move around the globe vs. telling a someone to sling code and infiltrate an infrstructure such as an Iranian nuclear facility. You don't see the benefits or out-of-controllness in chunks, it's all or nothing once it's in place.

Bad news for USA and Israel (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179109)

Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway. If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option. Nice job derps.

Re:Bad news for USA and Israel (3, Funny)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179405)

In retaliation, Iranian agents have infiltrated Microsoft, Canonical and GNOME and designed the next generation of user interfaces like Metro, Unity and GNOME3, so that Western Computer users will stop using computers, and attempts to sabotage their computers will be minimized. Imagine Pentagon officials having to struggle w/ GNOME3. Imagine Israeli cybercrime experts having to do this on Unity.

Here is why the US government spends so much... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179347)

... of the tax payers funding on warfare technology.

When you screw others enough it simply wouldn't be intelligent to not expect retaliation and when you can use tax payer funding without their knowledgeable consent...

This is about Banking and about getting everyone on the same abusive and controlling banking system.

Money is an abstract representation of value and honestly only intended to ease trade... but its instead become a produce in and of itself in order to manipulate and control economies around the world (yet disconnected from the real value it is supposed to represent). So any country resisting this with their own economic system is a threat to the banksters and their church and government cohorts. (the countries of Vatican City, London sq mile and Washington District of Columbia).

Someone selling book + NY Times = Non-Story (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40179427)

The only fact I see in all this is: The USA has not officially taken responsibility for an international incident.

This story is by someone making sensationalist claims to sell a book, and the NY Times is helping promote it.

As usual, the NY Times reporter relies on anonymous sources. No one knows how reliable they are. No one knows who they are.

The NY Times and their anonymous sources are known to be wrong, like the WMD in Iraq. So we trust them now?

The NY Times is known to make up news, such as Jason Blair. Can anything they say about Stuxnet be independently verified as being correct? No?

In love with the unaccountable power of technology (4, Insightful)

anti-pop-frustration (814358) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179461)

Got to love how Obama went from "Blackberry Candidate" to "Cyber Sabotage & Drone 'Secret Kill List' President". He's clearly in love with the unaccountable power that technology offers.

It's sickening to see how everyone in the US political establishment (Democrats, Republicans ie. all "respectable" people) cheer when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad. And boy do they love how "clean" and "efficient" those are. Hey, no Americans were hurt, the public loves to hear about the military killing bad guys and since these are conducted in remote areas, the US government doesn't even have to deal with the bad PR of "weeping widows" videos. It's all good! Who needs to seek Congress approval for declaring war, when technology allows you to wage a permanent and global secret war?

It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.

Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes? They are breeding generations of new enemies. The next time terrorists successfully blow up Americans or Americans allies, ask yourself: how would you react if people from your home town/area/country were droned in the night by a foreign power?

And if you were Iranian and you heard that the US is actively trying to sabotage your country's nuclear program, wouldn't that increase your support for the Iranian government and its policy to get nuclear technology, even when you actually loath Ahmadinejad and his authoritarian regime?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>