Slashdot Mirror
US Busts Military Network Hacker
yorgasor writes " KATU has an article announcing the case of a mysterious hacker who has broken into roughly 100 military networks has been solved. The hacker is a British citizen and authorities were considering extradition for the case. Although no networks containing classified information were compromised, they do consider the hacker to be a professional rather than recreational due to the large number of networks he hacked."
Huh? Something must have been left out of the blurb. If I wank 100 times a day to porn, does that mean I'm a professional wanker?
[o]_O
couldn't have been anything THAT serious
Any military insiders/Brit HaX0rs care to describe some US Military systems?
Wow! It took'em 100 or more tries to notice something was not quite right?
They probably had to bait and switch to catch him...
Obviously a pro, anyone who bats higher than 100 hacks is destined for the pros. Is there sponsorship for this wonderful sport of hacking?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
He must've been looking for the secret blueprints for the prevention of tooth decay...
I know the military is a big target and all but 1 GUY, 100 NETWORKS? Those military network security folks must be pretty lame. Seems like the could have tracked him down a lot sooner if they knew what they were doing.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Does that come with a 401k plan and a good dental plan? It still probably has a better retirement plan than Enron :P
Here's a link to the story on Yahoo!
/ 20021111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/hacker_investigation_1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap
He must have been pretty damn good to evade capture and continue to crack 100 sites. Makes me wonder home they caught him. If you are a professional and can break into 100 US military sites, what's to stop you? I figure if you are good enough to crack 10 or twenty without messing up, they are probably not going to catch you.
Anybody have any good stories of catching elusive hackers, or insights into how they might have got him?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
All your bases are belong to us...
Tournament Management Online &
It will be interesting to see if the US are actually able to extradite a Brit for having commited cyber crimes. Wouldn't the penalties be a fair bit harsher over the pond than in Europe?
ISO certified == THX certified
That's how American English functions, dawg. You have to be forceful with incorrect syntax, dank new phrases, and like, just plain wrong usage of words, and eventually you have your own little "who's who" entry in the dictionary (and it's free too, which is totally sweet.)
Why not just extradite them? The US has a extrdition treaty with Russia I'm sure. Now I'm not saying that arresting them was "wrong", but why resort to deceptive law enforcement tactics like this?
Throw some military sysadmins to a court-martial for dereliction of duty!
Ok, don't be that harsh on them. Scare em a little, then let the go with a warning. But national western militaries cannot continue to run their networks like this. It's dangerously irresponsible.
For a national military to assume they can use police arrests (force of arms) to secure their networks is folly. Armed force only works against attacks that are perpetrated from inside your range of military dominance. For the US that's a big area, but there's still many places where they can neither call in a SWAT team, nor direct an unmanned plane to assasinate the target.
If this fellow had been a professional (earning money from these hacks), then he'd be living in a secret compound provided by his employers in Iraq/Korea/China. True, the internet bandwidth isn't that great there, but a good hacker doesn't need it. He can just compromise some broadband PCs in the US or UK (possibly with the help of an agent on scene- a retailer who sells trojaned machines for instance) and use that to leapfrog to the real targets.
(If this guy was any good, we'll find out that this British suspect was just a patsy)
One big argument against more stringent computer-crime laws in the US is that they permit businesses and the military to postpone installing real network security. Why bother defending yourself, if the FBI just busts the punks for you?
This sets us up for disaster in 20 years, when the economy really needs the internet to survive day-to-day, and China has caught up to our 2005-era connectivity levels. If President Bush the 3rd angers China and they set 200 top computer professionals at making mischief, the damage could be real.
("Vaccinate now! Free Heckenkamp")
Closed Source
Admin'd by a Private Buisiness
Secured by Microsoft
Run by volunteers at each polling place.
Kinda makes you wonder if you really did/will vote, eh?
If this guy does get extradited to the US, I bet he'll be working for someone in a five-sided building real soon.
The article was vague. Maybe he made a mistake and gave the investigators something that identified him. Equally likely, maybe the infosec guys decided the payoff for letting him continue hacking for a while (firm up the evidence for a conviction, be able to convict him for more serious offences, and most importantly figure out what his motives and techniques were) was more important than having him arrested immediately.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Remeber hackers have an ethics clause built into their "contracts" . Once broken you trade it health plans for orange jumpers and the chance of having your manhood "rooted". I hope he gets a cell big enough to count the days in binary on his wall.
"He is probably a dirty, greasy, long haired linux hippie freak, who smells REALLY bad and hasn't taken a shower or left his parents basement in 5 years"
Don't you mean "GNU/Linux hippie freak"
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
Maybe he was armed by an AK77?
No, it isn't. Terrorism is the use of violence and/or threats to frighten a civilian population, to coerce or punish them.
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
Would breaking into British Military also be terrorism? How about Iraq?
There is a difference between breaking into a companies network out of curiosity and breaking into a millitary network. At worst, it could be considered an act of war from the country where the hacker originated against the country that was hacked. This would be bad for britain as they are totally dependant on America for support and are controlled by America's millitary policy.
Britian is dependent on the US? Tony Blair certainly is Bush's Yes Man, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are dependent on us, or controlled by our policy.
100 successful hacks is quite impressive, and it's good to see that America's war on terrorism is paying off and this man was caught before he could have caused serious damage to the western world.
Yes. The war on terrorism is paying off, just like the war on drugs. We prevented this guy from breaking into *every* military network, just like we've taught kids to 'Just Say No' and quelled the importation of millions of dollars of coke and dope.
Thank you Geoilrge Bush, and God Bless Amerika!
Yes, I know, IHBT,IHL,HAND - I just wanted to practice my italics and paragraph tags.
I'd be awfully surprised if there were such a treaty -- here's a reference that there's not There's still a pretty big difference in each's concept of justice, and they were bitter enemies until a few minutes ago.
There's no problem with deceptive law enforcement so long as it is not entrapment or go so far as to violate the constitution. For many types of crime it is the only practical way to get a collar. It depend son the circumstances. One of my favorites were a bunch of guys who owed child support; the cops had arrest warrants and called them all to tell them they'd won the lottery and all they had to do was claim the prize. It was a slaughter....
Interestingly, some countries are unwilling to extradite to the U.S., Russia, or other countries that practice capital punishment. This is a background issue re 9/11 prosecutions.
Bah you wouldn't have stood a snowflakes chance in hell with out the Russians and you know it.
...the British have TWICE attacked the United States for no good reason and lost. OK, it's been a few years, but do we KNOW this guy wasn't OSS? The British have been known to carry grudges.
Seriously, I would not argue that Britain is totally dependent on the U.S., and certainly not control by our military policy (they can defend themselves against, um, the French?). It just looks that way because they're the only ones (the gov't anyway) who agree with the U.S. half the time on international issues.
Merriam-Webster says "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". I'm surprised the US gov't hasn't forced all dictionaries to broaden the definition.
So, a guy from Iran who breaks into just one military computer is a recreational terrorist, right?
"All your base are belong to us". Please, when posting shitty jokes, at least post them correctly.
"Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
Wow, that's a pretty extreme definition of terrorism.
There is a difference between breaking into a companies network out of curiosity and breaking into a millitary network.
hmmm... Are you saying that morality can be judged as a function of whether or not a particular act is committed against the state or a private company? I agree that if info. had been stolen that it would be a very bad thing, but since nothing broken into was classified ??? I'm not sure we know that he did anything other than make some web/sys admins look bad.
I can tell you right now I would not be amused if someone hacked into my systems because they were curious. I wouldn't take any legal action unless someone actually took intellectual property, but I'd probably 'hack' my sysadmin a new one!
All of that being said, I say hang him upside-down for 20 years and then turn him rightside-up for another 20.
porn*! - hanging upside-down for almost 20 minutes now!
Give it up. This one has been lost, just like split inifinitives or latin plurals. Why must we persist in calling fora forums?
Guess you just have to accept that the word 'hacker' now has more than one meaning, it happens to words sometimes. One of them is a synonym of 'cracker,' the other(s) is(are) something quite else.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Tsutomu Shimomura takes the credit and turns it into a book and a movie... just to make some extra cash.
military cyber-guards.
.mil and *all* of it was easily readable by the viewer....
I was watching this discovery channel documentary and there was this military type, jar-head cyber guard guy. He was standing there talking about how they monitor all the traffic on their networks, and keep a close eye out for any signatures of attack.
He was stressing how secret they keep all their information about their networks - that they dont let anyone know even their IP sets assigned to different networks, and that this information could help an attacker find out the machines they would need to attack.
The whole time he was talking about this - he was standing in front of a bunch of monitors, and the ones to the left of him was scrolling some sort of log and it was showing IPs to hostname mappings and some traceroutes as well. They were all in the really low IPs - and their hostnames were all
and i do not think it was something that was done on purpose and made to look like an accident. Not by the way these people were acting.
especially since they avoided filming any of the screens that people were working on.
So I am not too surprised.
Sleeping with a lot of men/women makes someone a slut; it requires getting paid for it to be considered a professional.
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
The term "terrorist" has certainly been overused in the past year or so, but what many people don't realize is that it actually has a strict legal definition. (Well, actually several strict legal definitions, depending on the jurisdiction you're paying attention to at the time.)
Way back in 1937, the League of Nations defined terrorism as, "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public." So under that definition, an act is terrorism only if it's specifically intended to create a state of terror. September 11, yes. This guy, no.
In 1999, the UN defined terrorism this way: "Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them." So here to we have the idea that the act must be specifically intended to invoke a feeling of terror. So by that definition, too, this incident is not terrorism.
The USDOD defines terrorism to be, "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Once again we have the idea that the act must be calculated to cause fear. If an act merely incidentally causes fear or terror, it's not strictly terrorism.
Since 9/11, laws have sprung up in several US jurisdictions making it a crime to plan, enact, or carry out any act designed to produce a fear response in the population. In fact, the DC sniper suspects are being indicted in Maryland under just such a law. But all of these also have the same basic thread: that the act must have been done with the specific and deliberate intent of causing fear.
So no, what this loser did isn't technically terrorism.
At worst, it could be considered an act of war from the country where the hacker originated against the country that was hacked.
Not really. In order to make the leap from crime to act of war, there has to be an element of direct or indirect state sponsorship. An individual acting on his own to carry out a criminal act-- even a horrible or devastating one-- in another country does not automatically constitute an act of war. But if another government sponsors the act, that's a different story. The basic idea here is that war is a state of armed conflict between nations, not between groups or individuals. Rhetorical shorthand aside, the United States could never be in a state of war against al Qaeda, or against Osama bin Laden personally. The concept of war can't be applied to those sorts of conflicts in any meaningful way.
I write in my journal
Hrm, "they do consider the hacker to be a professional rather than recreational due to the large number of networks he hacked."
/. reader? This is so cool! I thought I was unemployed, but no, here I am, practicing my profession *right now!* Rawk!
Wow, I guess I'm a professional
Gee, I guess deadpan slips by some people a little too easily? I thought I put in enough hints. Read it again, slower....
Because it's gauranteed to elicit responses like yours, followed by more page views, followed by more ad revenue. Frankly, I'm surprised I had to scroll this far down to read this post, which I anticipated as soon as I read the headline.
Do you think the /. editors aren't aware of this little linguistic duel? This, BTW, is also the same reason they don't really care about polishing the stories, and may in fact be intentionally putting little grammar and spelling gaffes into them--more page views, more ad revenue. I put forth that theory many posts ago; though I don't claim to be the originator of it.
At any rate, "cracker" is already reserved for crazy people, a racial slur used against Whites by Blacks, and most commonly a crunchy snack food. Overloading it any further just didn't make sense. Hacker can be used exclusively for those who break into computers as far as I'm concerned. We already have many thesaurus entries with less sinister connotations: geek, nerd, guru, and hobbiest, all of which may be modified with "computer" as an adjective when the context is unclear (which it usually isn't). Speaking of context, when modified with the name of something (e.g., Linux hacker, assembly hacker) the word regains its positive connotation; but you still need to be careful when using it in the company of laymen.
At any rate, I seem to recall a time when the /. editors were on the side of the purists; but that time has passed. Some may choose to look back to a time before /. "sold out". I prefer to think that the battle is over and the "cracker" advocates lost.
However, I will give you guys something in your favor. Use of the term "safe cracker" persists so we have introduced yet another context-sensitive rule into the English language, making it that much harder for people to learn the language.
Could it be simply that "computer cracker" is too aliterative and just doesn't sound right? Also, a safe cracker may literally have to crack (break) something to get in, whereas a hacker (a good one anyway) usually doesn't break anything.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I assure that my original post was written in the clearest of mind and calmest of spirit. You sound like you could use a drink. Good Day.
You can bet your sweet ass that was sanitized screens you where looking at. When I worked in the navy command center we where frequently visited by the press and if they had camera's we threw bogus stuff on the screens to sanitize the area before entry. So what you see is completely bogus smoke and mirrors.
Got Code?
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
No, it is not. Terrorism is the use of terror tactics against a civilian population (which presumably isn't able to defend itself). Attacking military targets is perfectly legitimate acts of guerilla warfare, and the perpertrators of such are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and not this "enemy combatant" category that Bush invented.
So:
* attacking that supertanker the other month - terrorism.
* ramming the Cole - legit.
* blowing up the WTC - terrorism.
* blowing up the Pentagon - legit.
* shooting off-duty US marines in Yemen - legit.
* hacking military bases - legit act of war, or civil crime. Definitely not terrorism.
* dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a wedding party - a regretable accident.
Essentially, any act against a government office or military base would be a legitimate act of war.
not that it really matters but what is up with the parent's nick? binary for 7 and 14? or is it 126? ASCII for V? I don't get it, please explain...
Professional (adj) - practicing for a livelihood.
Either this person was making his money from this (which I doubt) or this is another case of "they don't know the what they are saying".
Just like the abuse of the words "theft" and "pirate" in relation to software when no one is permenantly deprived of anything.
These terms are being misused, not out of ignorance (although the ignorance is obvious) but out of a desire to create a false impression and make the crime seem worse than it is.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
As far as attacking the rest of the oil producing countries go, we don't have a 'convincing/convienent' excuse. Yet.
I figure that things will happen roughly like this: War on Iraq after 'lame duck' session of Congress is over. Some homeland security stuff mixed in with some education reform (for the kids!/votes) pushed thru Congress, another smaller 'terrorist attack' somewhere visible, maybe on the other coast, war on random terrorist-producing(oil) country. More tax cuts for people who don't need them, maybe some more touchy-feely legislation, go and drill in Anwar, more homeland security powers and rights to seize and detain, and finish up with some more love-in legislation barely covering the dark amendments beneath. Just in time for 2004, and polls, and scared/delighted/one-issue voters!
Whee. I wish I didn't think these things. Cynical, paranoid, ignorant, or trolling, some AC will come along and call me all four.
I just hope I'm not right.
...who broke into roughly 100 unclassified...
.mil web sites designed to attract Army recruits or something.
Did you folk all miss this phrase? Focus on the word 'unclassified.' This retard probably hax0red a bunch
Last post!
Basically what he did was sit at a keyboard typing and looking at a screen in, presumably, the UK. At what point was the crime committed? When he hit the return key, or when he viewed the resulting data? I would suggest that is the case, and any prosecution should take place in the UK - there is plenty of existing legislation.
I am sure that someone will start bleating on about the theft of CPU cycles, or whatever. But this is extremely abstract. If the sites were non-secure, then presumably they had public access. If we are going to pass laws that people can only view websites as the designer intended, it may suit the kind of Government idiots that once threatened someone with prosecution for telling them they had an open SQL port with anonymous login on a military server, but is hardly going to promote good design (or be enforceable).
This is exactly the kind of case that makes the notion of a World Court reasonable. But I can just imagine his lawyers going to the EU Courts to argue that (a) the US is refusing to allow its citizens to be subject to the ICC, thus demonstrating that US law is not even-handed, (b) in the present climate of hysteria he could in any case not get a fair trial, (c) that US law is in conflict with EU human rights legislation.
It seems to me we have more to fear from the kind of idiots that go in for the kneejerk "This guy looked at a Govt. site! He is a terrorist!" reaction. The word for them is Stalinists, and the last thing we want is for the delightful security and political policies of the former Soviet Union to gain a foothold in the Republican Party.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
We should free him? Why? He doesn't need us. He's doing such a marvelous job of freeing himself that he shouldn't need our help.
Hey, if I let someone crack into my machine after I commit really incriminating and expensive online crimes, do I get a "Get Out Of Responsibility" card too?
What a load...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Actually, by the Patriot Act, hacking IS an act of terrorism. I forget the exact wording of it, but any attempt to gain access to a government computer system is considered a act of terrorism.
Just because it a law doesn't make it right.
Or as someone once said: Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
Life is too short to proofread.
Q: How can you tell a professional hacker has hacked into your network?
A: You can't. That's why he's a professional.
You don't know what you're talking about. The International Criminal Court is only concerned with "mass crimes" against humanity, especially this committed by by states.
Try reading ICC Jurisdiction:
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression.-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
..about this story, is that noone of slashdotters objected this time to use of word 'hacker' as a label to 'cracker'.
Oh well...
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Classified networks are air-gapped from unclassified networks, which the Internet is by definition.
I love it when some U.S. gov't computer getting hacked makes headlines....The most sensitive info a hacker could ever get would be HR type info.
Yes, and according to the DMCA, copying my CDs into my computer can be considered an act of Copyright Violation...and Theft.
The Patriot Act is as full of shit as half the new laws passed in recent years. Not that we dont' need to protect against terroism, but dont' call a crime "terrorism" when it isn't. Hacking a US Millitary network is a pretty Bad Thing to be doing, but I wouldn't put it in the same catagory as strapping a bomb to your chest and diving through a resteraunt window.
The US Government is too easily excited by hype and buzzwords like that...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
So let me see if I have this right.
The US Military want to prosecute somebody for doing something they've been doing for years ?
I dont think its so unreasonable to think that this guy could be a pro, many people have said that just becuase he has hacked tha many networks he isnt a pro, which is true. But i think that it is not unreasonable to assume that for him to be good enough do this, he could well be a pro, even if he wasnt bing payed for these specific hacks.
wish i didnt have to post as an anon coward, but ive forgotten my nick/pass time to sign up again i guess!
[paraphrased from someone's alt.2600 post. apologies to the poster; I can't remember who it was]
The term Hacker vs. Cracker is just an attempt by a bunch of pompous, self
righteous, tie wearing dorks to separate themselves from the unruly upstarts that
have surfaced in the past 10 years. Hacker isn't a name that solely belongs to
those people who somehow think that they're Marvin Minsky's grandchildren. It's a
name for whatever a person happens to call themselves. I'm sure there's a great
number of professional Axe Murderers who are dismayed that a bunch of computer
nerds are calling themselves 'hackers' too, but you don't see THEM acting all
indignant over it.
You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself.
-- Ken Thompson
The British have been known to carry grudges.
Yep, but only for around 50 years or so; Americans seem to carry them for 200 years.
The present US govt. will not allow the extradition of US citizens by the ICC for the most serious crimes, war crimes, mass murder etc. So why should anyone allow extradition to the US for lesser crimes committed outside its jurisdiction? Either the Bush government recognises that all states and citizens have legitimate cross-border security interests, or it doesn't. At the moment, it recognises them in a very one-sided way (You can prosecute Milosevic, but not Kissinger.) It also has a habit of tearing up international treaties. So why should other states recognise treaties with the US? This is a no-brainer. If Bush wants to be isolationist, fine. If he wants to be internationalist, better. But saying "I can be isolationist in my interests but internationalist when I want something from you" - Tony Soprano government.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I think he'd better take a much needed vacation. I'm tired of hearing about crackers going to jail. The Falkland Islands are rather nice this time of year. ;-)
Ahh there's no need. Given that article (and many others like it) doesn't seem to know the difference between England and Britain, he could probably just move to Scotland, Wales, or N.I. and they wouldn't find him
He's evil, he's fascist, he kills his own people, his own countrymen... He lives in luxury, while his own public starves.
You do realize that this of course also applies to the fundamentalistic theocracy of Saudi Arabia? The country where medieval style punishment is still 'ok', women are not allowed to drive, homosexuals simply do not exist, the increasingly larger poorer segment of the population barely has enough food to live of, while the filthy rich 'princes' live in luxury in their palaces
The difference between a friend (Saudi Arabia) and a foe (Iraq) doesn't appear to lie in the extent to which their leadership is despicable, it's about the extent to which they are willing to play along. Saddam wasn't any more of a 'swell guy' when his regime was considered friendly to the western countries...
And yeah, oil makes everything all the more relevant
Moz.
see a Text Widget
Or at least no more than any observation operation set up by police.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
He's entertaining as a speaker too. I was at his panel at a Niagara Falls science-fiction convention. Perhaps just a little hyperactive. :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Do you really think troop movements are done via unclassified networks? It's all done through AUTODIN via messaging, or through DMS, which requires a ISSUED Fortezza card to release the message. I don't think a hacked email/message coming from "Doe Col John A" saying to move "10,000 troops to Luxembourg" would be taken seriously. It was most likely some unpatched IIS servers that were servers as www.wherever.service.mil. Sure, those IIS servers should be patched, but the crap it takes to get it authorized is insane. We're still waiting to stand up a single Win2k Server (without AD). Of course, in the Navy/Marine Corps, everything IT is essentially "on-hold" for NMCI. You think this will be any better when EDS takes over the unclassified networks for 1/2 the military?
mcox.com - Useful Information re: IT, Running, Fitness, Finance, or Ann Arbor!
If you send paratroops in dressed as civilians and force the military to go after people that look like thier own people (and greatly increase the chances of civilian casualties), you don't deserve the same rights as common soldiers.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
Actually, top military theorists have yet to work out a way in which Germany's 'Sealion' invasion plan could work.
Indeed, Operation Sealion was doomed from the start, the British Isles where never seriously threatened with invasion. Operation Sealion required the defeat of the RAF to establish air superiority over the English Channel, then defeat of the Royal Navy, before a landing could even be considered.
The RAF-Fighter Command held their own against the Luftwaffe, RAF-Bomber Command sunk most of the Rhine Barges to be used for the landings. Costal Command kept the Channel clear of the Germany surface fleet and the Royal Navy chased the German High fleet around the global, either sinking it's ships or forcing them into home waters for the duration of the War.
The Royal Navy defeated the Italian Navy (which was superior in numbers and equivalent in technology to the Germany Fleet. The 'Desert Rat's' (British Army Regulars) defeated first the Italians then the Germans in North Africa, the Italian forces in the Middle East. (It is also perhaps worth mentioning the Italian reputation for cowardice is largely unfounded, faint, thrust, retreat, consolidate was very much the tactics of all sides in North Africa.)
Also what many seem to forget is that prior to WW2, Great Briton (& Empire) was the pre-eminent Military power in the World, in essense it was the Worlds only true super power'. In a pre-WW2 (& nuclear weapons) sense this was measured by the ability to project an effective military force around the world and provide the logistics to maintain a compaign. There was only one nation able to do this before WW2, and that was British Royal Navy. Undeniably the cost of WW2 for Briton was the loss of Empire.
In fact, it was the Poles that saved us (1930s Polish hackers won WWII for the allies).
And then we (all Western Allies) betrayed them.
Don't forget about Venezuela, Russia, or any number of other places with large amounts of oil. Even if the middle east was nuked tomorrow, we'd only face an oil shortage from distribution problems, not from diminished oil availability.
I agree. We've got two+ experts in the White House, how could we have a shortage? We aren't going to nuke anything, we are just going to go in and 'help'. With that help will come a few select buisinesses that will set themselves up well. Frankly, I don't need FUD, I need TUMS. The liberals don't have a monopoly on making fear, uncertainty and doubt.
(Oh, and it's Pyrrhic, not phyrric. Even without the correct spelling, it still refers to Pyrrhus, so you should at least capitalize it as a proper noun. Classical education ain't what it were.)
...
I normally loathe and despise grammar nazis (of which I most emphatically do not classify your post), for a couple of reasons: I don't spel very well myself, and web fora are notoriously lacking in spelling checkers, and I find the thought being communicated more important than the fine details of writing (exception: formal works for publication), particularly in casual forums such as this.
All that having been said, yours is the first such correction I'm actually greateful for. My education was public (which is arguably the antithese of classical these days), and Pyrrhic, while I understand the phrase from having seen it in many contexts where the meaning was apparent, was something I never knew the origin of (and probably wouldn't have managed to spell anyway). So for the first time in the 15 years I've been on the 'net (and perhaps the last), I just want to say thanks for that little tidbit of information
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I realize all that. But I don't think Saudi Arabia has plans to kill us or take over that section of the world. So the point is...they are playing along with the rest of the world, they aren't threatening everybody. If they were - and they might be going that way, given their recent show of support for Sadam - it wouldn't be unreasonable to think of action there too.
Look! Look! I got modded down because....why? "underrated". ??? Is it cuz I'm taking a disagreeing stance? Some moderators do use mod points to argue, idn'it great?
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Yes, a hacker is a person that breaks into computer systems or is simply good at programming. A cracker is a dry flat biscuit that goes nicely with cheese.
Unfortunately, English is a living language which means that the meanings of words depends on a consensus of the people that use them. The word "hacker" means "person who breaks into computer systems".
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Bush may not have coined the term "unlawful combatants" but he did misuse it. Neither the Talaliban nor the nothern alliance wore uniforms yet he decided to call the Taliban unlawful combatants. The Taliban were the "legitimate" side in that country and were not unlawful combatants by wny stretch of the term. I personally am glad to see them gone as they were cruel and barbaric. It is fine by me that the military went in and ousted them but when you make a white flag deal it is completely unforgivable to renage on it. Most of the soldiers held in Cuba were given assurances that if they surrendered they could go home. When they got to the fort in Afghanistan they were told that they could not go home until they had told the CIA all that was required. That was when they rebelled. The US changed the rules after making a deal.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Hadly directed attacks towards military installations. If that wasn't using terror to make Japan surrender, I don't know. Yet I haven't seen Truman (or the generals, or Congress / Senate) on trial for it. Now why doesn't that surprise me?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Here's the latest
I don't know where you got this information from, but if true, he could probably plead prevention of genocide as a defence against extradition (Genocide act 1969) considering that he incapacitated part of the military and given the US killings of innocent civilians in Afghanistan as part of the "war on terror".
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
That's just further proof that CIA have got something on him.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
There is no need to. As long as you attack one, the rest won't put their prices up too high for Mrs. American Pie to fill her gas-guzzler to the brim, or cut their prices too low for Dubya Exploration to make a profit.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Btw, the presence of brave and patriotic troops in a region does not automatically justify their being there.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
The above response was originally posted in response to the "newton's principia stolen" article. Several times now I've seen my own comments and those of others become magically attached to some other story. Cowboy Neal needs to fix is. Or something.
Assuming that he hasn't done a deal to become World President in the near future (a role that I am sure he would be eager to have if the UN had more power), the leading explanation for his puppet-like behaviour is quite possibly that the CIA have him under their complete contol.
If only we could find out how.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
The German plan was a fine one, and could've worked ...
It was fine for the invasion of Norway where strategic and tactical surprise was achieved against numerically inferior military at a low state of readiness.
It was a poor plan against the British Isles. 1) No surprise, not even tactical. 2) British had a superior force on the ground. 3) No prospect of quickly seizing the seat of Government. 4) Little prospect of retaining seizing Airfields, 5) Little prospect of seizing or retaining ports.
German forces could've pushed onto the British Isles
The Germans had limited amphibious capability therefore allowed only limited provision for landing heavy equipment, tanks, artillery, trucks etc; beyond seizing a port as the primary objective. Germany Parachutists would have been extremely vulnerable to land based mechanised counter attack (something not possible in Norway due to terrain). They would have been in a worse position than the Allies at Arnhem during Market Garden, without any prospect of retreat across the channel. They would have been decimated.
In summary German amphibious & parachute forces where adequate to take Norway, they would have been completely inadequate to take the British Isles.
Sealion was never implemented or even seriously consider, it was a plan, not an operation. The German high command even the reckless Hitler realised it was complete folly.
the RAF was seriously attrited.
The RAF had three fighter groups available in the British Isles. Two front line fighter groups and one stategic reserve. It committed only one front line group to the Battle of Briton. The RAF's plan was to rotate the Southern and Northern Groups, if the Southern group broke. It never broke. The Luftwaffe may have started with a numerical advantage but in practice the RAF had many practical advantages, RADAR, it operated over friendly territory, it had lower losses, higher production of new aircraft, much higher levels pilot replacement and aircraft better suited to the task in hand.
Maybe if the German resources weren't split on the Eastern front they could've overwhelmed the defenders.
No. Barbarossa, the German offensive against the Soviet Union started in June 41 nearly a year after the Battle of Briton finished in August 40.
I agree with you about general US foreign policy. It is typically one-sided.
What I meant was that the ICC or a World Court is not directly relevant in this case: what is relevant are international treaties and agreements on extradiction and recognition of crimes - irrespective of anything to do with the ICC or a World Court.
You said: ''yet tries to extend US jurisdiction outside its borders. But this is ridiculous. If the actions took place in the EU, on what basis could there be extradition to the US?''
Incorrect: The actions did not take place in the EU - the act of intrusion occurred in the US, because the physical machines are located in the US. He was a legal entity ''reaching into'' the US and acting within the US.
The crime is "intrusion into computer". Where is the computer: US. He is located outside of the US, but the act occurred in the US.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
However, and I am aware I may be taking this argument beyond the scope fo the usual Slashdot discussions, it is precisely the concept of "reaching into" a foreign server that I take issue with. The actual actions of the alleged cracker took place in the UK, not the US. What actually passed to the US? Nothing physical (the electrons in the wire do not cross the Atlantic). In effect, he asked the server to do something (passed information ) and it responded by doing it.
Now consider an analogous case. Suppose I phone up someone in Chicago and tell them I am their long-lost uncle from Tampa. The person is foolish enough to believe it. I then persuade them to remit me $250 in cash so that I can make it to Chicago, with some hard-luck story. Now, what crime have I committed? Possibly fraud. Where did I commit it? I suggest that most people would say "In Tampa", because that is where I was when I told all those lies, and that is where I actually received the money. What happened in Chicago was that someone behaved in a foolish and gullible manner - which is not itself a crime, though perhaps it should be.
In the same way, although the server was physically located in the US, the action of telling lies to it took place in the UK, and the "stolen" information was received in the UK. The server answered questions and responded to requests to perform certain actions. Had the server ignored the requests, nothing would have happened. The situation is quite different from, say, a terrorist missile launched from one country into another, where a physical destructive agency is passed over which does not rely on the cooperation of an agency in the attacked country.
Of course, IANAL-just someone who has lawyers in the family.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
You need to talk to your lawyers about legal jurisdiction. These jurisdictional arguments are well established in legal community (I am currently a law student).
...).
k e.html
The "telling lies" and "information was received" are not the issue, the issue is "theft/break into computer" which clearly happened in the US. Although the act was initiated elsewhere, it clearly happened in the US (the server is in the US - how much more clear can that be?).
Your point about treason has mixed relevance. Firstly treason only applies to citizens of a country, not to non-citizens, and it relates to state secrets and issues that affect the security/wellbeing of a country, not mere criticism (although the line can be fuzzy, most sensible people know where it is). Although in international law under the "doctrine of effects", some activity outside of a country that has impact upon the country can be taken as affecting law within that country (so, for example, an external person inciting hatred within a country causing significant legal problems could be considered to have violated said countries laws -- whether or not extradition will help, though
I'd prefer not to continue this debate.
Read this: http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v50/no1/wils
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
Hadly directed attacks towards military installations. If that wasn't using terror to make Japan surrender, I don't know. Yet I haven't seen Truman (or the generals, or Congress / Senate) on trial for it. Now why doesn't that surprise me?
There are a number of people who argue that "Bomber" Harris should be considered a war criminal because he ordered the fire-bombing of Dresden at a point in WWII when Germany's defeat was all but certain. That absolutely pales in comparison to the nuclear attacks against Japan of course, but some might say that Japan was all but defeated prior to the nuclear attacks as well...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Hehehe.. I'm not going to die in the near future. I'm afraid you'll have to get used to me! I'm so cool!!! And I love myself. yea.
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss