Slashdot Mirror
Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare
Jeremiah writes "The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver quite the display of modern, smart technology well beyond what we saw in '91. President Bush recently ordered the development of rules for cyber engagement by the military. Beyond the numerous special forces on the ground like in Afganistan, the US will use soldiers in office chairs to disrupt Iraqi infrastructure."
Well, it's probably not goint to be distributed, but it'd be great if there were international sanctions placed on cyber-warfare methods. Somehow, though, I doubt our government will be that effective, and that Iraq will have enough connected systems to really do any good.
Read jack phelps dot net
... they're prepared to engage in one mother of an immoral battle, and have said their prayers, kissed their girls, and balanced their books. War in Iraq is *not* going to be pretty for you guys.
...
The US is now what Germany was in the 30's... off to fight its merry war with 'justifiable cause'.
Don't you Americans realize that the UN was *made* to prevent countries like yours from abusing their power?
That this war is now being trivialized into some sort of 'happy meme' worthy of idle discussion by tech nerds in the context of some sci-fi-turned-reality 'cyberwar' is really disturbing.
If globalization, McDonalds, Britney and all the other wonderful machinations of The American Way didn't turn me off your crappy country, then the robotic nature of its citizens kowtowing to the propaganda machine being operated by King George Bush II definitely is
I don't care if there are guidelines for 'cyberwar against Iraq' being published... This war is NONSENSE!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Actually, I'd like to clarify this a bit: letters of marque and reprisal are noted in the Constitution saying the government may issue them. This article references them and explains things decently enough. Unknown to the author's article, the Declaration of Paris was signed by the United States, and in short nullifies our ability to issues letters of marque and reprisal. However, this was all in reference to maritime war law... nothing was noted that could be construed to offer protection, except perhaps against civilian networks.
SIG: HUP
Not trolling, just worried.
how is Taco going to feel when he reads about a Chinook full of young Americans that got shot down from a SAM battery that could not be hacked and disabled because Achmed reads Slashdot,
Right. The Iraq government can afford to run a net connection to every SAM battery, and is stupid enough to leave it open to the Internet. Even societies that can afford to network their military, don't connect the Internet to internal systems - it's just stupid. The most secure connection is none at all, and everyone knows that.
I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.
I didn't realize we were planning on slaughtering all the Iraqs and colonizing the country. That, of course, is about the only way we're going to get a "western ideologued" society in Iraq. What do you think the odds are that we can even get some sort of stable democracy going - historically, "our son of a bitch" governments have been common - and it's questionable whether you can just stick a democracy in a country that has no concept of one and have it thrive.
One of the tools a cracker uses is social engineering. And unless he can speak fluent, unaccented Arabic, he won't be able to directly use that tool.
Of course, there could be a separate team for that. But I suspect a strict government like Iraq has paperwork for everything. And inquisitions for those who forget their paperwork.
What's this Submit thingy do?
I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.
Flip the issue around and see if your suggestion makes any sense:
For the duration of the war, let's refrain from posting notices of vulnerabilities and exploits so that sysadmins in places other than Iraq can't keep their systems properly defended from cyber-terrorists who are sympathetic to the Iraqi cause (or are simply anti-American).
Makes no sense, right? Withholding vulnerability information is far more likely to adversely affect civilian and public service networks in the US and supporting nations than the Iraqi military/industrial complex.
However, there are other questions this brings up:
Food for thought.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Most countries have electronic switching systems and microwave links for the phone service. Those were targets that NATO hit in Serbia several years ago, and in Iraq in 1991. Even Afghanistan had some. Russia uses microwave links. China also. Actually, it's probably only countries like Somalia, which have almost no communications infrastructure, that wouldn't be vulnerable.
Best Slashdot Co
1. We (the Bush administration) can do anything we want to anyone else.
2. Noone can not do anything at all to us (the Bush administration).
3. Americans, including American companies, can do anything they want to any foreign country, company or person.
4. No foreign country, company or person can do anything to any american person or company.
There, that sounds about right.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Here's how Powell should have produced his evidence:
"We're absolutely sure Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM! And I have the receipts RIGHT HERE!" (Powell holds up receipts)
That would remove all doubt, wouldn't it. But I guess we'll never see that.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver...quite a display
It seem to have escaped you that there are humans getting killed by this "firework". They have family, brothers, sisters, friends. Ever wondered, how one becomes a terrorist?
"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." --General Colin Powell [When asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by Americans in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign (200,000 people!)]
Bush seems to have an "at all costs" attitude which even includes freedom.
Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully.
Agreed. That's not my question. My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
Some claim that if an "appropriate authority" have made a "solid legal demand" for information and action, and that demand is ignored or rebuffed, then it is an appropriate excuse to "immediately remove by force" the person who failed to obey orders (with "UN", "Disarm Iraq" and "War" being the three example fillers). I happen to believe that there should be some more levels of negotiation in between failure to comply and ALL OUT WAR. However, if you like that attitude, how about if we reword that with "appropriate authority" being "US Congress" and "solid legal demand" being a request for VP DC to turn over information about his energy policy meetings, and HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED! Is that a sufficient reason to "immediately remove by force" Mr. DC? Apparently not. Hypocracy is so ugly.
Bush talks like Iraq is ready to jump out and take over the world unless we stop him. Go look at what really happened. Iraq attacked in 1990. UN responded. Iraq Defeated. Iraq withdraws. Iraq hasn't peeped outside their borders since 1991. CIA rates Iraq as non-threat unless attacked first. So what does Bush do? He makes a lot of noise. He claims Iraq is about to attack everyone. He says he's going to attack them first. He CREATES the threat situation where there was none before. Sure, Iraq wasn't disarming, but they weren't trying to start a war either. Of all the tin-pot dictators in the world, Saddam knows from personal experience exactly what will happen to him if he does. He may be a mad man, but he isn't stupid. He wants weapons to maintain power inside Iraq, not outside.
Now because of Bush's "Heroic, No non-since, Take control, Total domination threats", we have North Korea, a REAL international threat, breathing down our necks. What is "our hero" George doing about them? NOTHING! I guess he wanted an easy target for his "Pet Project" war, not a "real enemy" that he might actually have to negotiate with. You can't look all powerfull and right if you have to negotiate. Bad for the "Hero" image.
I can't say what the appropriate action is from now forward. Maybe war is the only out. Bush is claiming he can't back down now. It would look weak. But I think it was REALLY BAD to intentionally put us into this situation in the first place. WAR KILLS PEOPLE. The best way to save American lives is NOT TO GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why was Bush so desperate to start one where it wasn't necessary? Obviously not to save lives. Probably it was to distract us from all the bad economic news, or maybe to avenge Daddy's image. Great idea. Economy in a slump, severe deficit. So lets make it worse by inventing an expensive war, runnin up the deficit even more and strangling the economy to death.
Forking Stupid Arrogant Idiot.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
You know, we have a president, who is smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything, and therefore has surrounded himself with specialists he trusts to not lie to him, and to give him advice on subjects of importance. So, it would be logical to guess that those drafting (vs those signing/championing) the guidelines would know the tech.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The issue is that as much as people bitch and complain, the US is turning out fewer and fewer college grads with engineering degrees every year. This was true even during the .com bubble when any clown who could correctly spell Java was given multiple offers.
Further, I was unemployed and I DO support him. I may not agree with everything he does, but he has taken decisive action to stop terrorism and attempt to get this economy going. Has he been successful? Yes and no, we haven't had any more attacks and tax cuts (for whomever) is becoming one of the ONLY ways we're going to get the economy going again. Greenspan can only drop the interest rates so low...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Not my intention to be troll here, but i quote:
"the Pentagon has stepped up development of cyber-weapons, envisioning a day when electrons might substitute for bombs and allow for more rapid and less bloody attacks on enemy targets."
Hacking to shut down radars and power from thousands of miles away can have no other cause than to support an aerial assault, and aerial assaults are never bloodless. They just want to cripple people so they cannot strike back. Maybe we should redefine the terms "blood" and "human beings" to fit the United States wardance more correctly. Schools and hospitals without power can only turn people more against US.
Fighting for peace is like fuxxing for virginity.
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
This is the first I've heard of this, and it does raise some troubling questions. The Iraqi leadership has always been painted as fundamentally uncaring about their people--and yet, they've taken the time to develop a system specifically to make sure that everyone is fed, something we can't even do here?
At the very least, it explains why the people support Saddam Hussein--if we come in and take over, I somehow doubt we're going to be nearly as concerned with making sure that people have food and other basic necessities.
This comment wasn't insightful at all...
The previous poster complained about Bush. He said nothing to support the Democrats, yet you accuse him of this. Being anti-Bush does not automatically make someone a Democrat lover. I've heard of many people who are Republicans but are very unhappy with Bush; would you call them Democrat lovers too?
As for college grads with engineering degrees, there's a good reason for that. Kids have been growing up seeing what a crappy profession engineering is, with long, hard hours, pointy-haired bosses, mediocre pay, and worst of all a very short career span (and getting shorter), and realizing that contrary to all the big companies' efforts to brainwash them into taking this career path, it's not a smart move. So they're going into other fields. Why spend 5+ years, go $50k into debt, and not have any time at all to enjoy college when you're there, just to get out, work 80-hour weeks, and get laid off as soon as the economy turns sour or the company decides to open a development center in Bangalore?
As far as I'm concerned, American companies shouldn't be allowed to hire H1B's, and shouldn't be allowed to open development centers in 3rd world countries (or else they should be treated as foreign companies and heavily tariffed). If that means they go down the tubes, too bad; they made their beds, now they should sleep in them.
Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to get the economy going. Rich people don't spend their money, especially when the economy is poor.
Democrat comment? Fine, whatever. NOBODY has tried to curtail H1Bs. For the very reason I stated.
Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to get the economy going. Rich people don't spend their money, especially when the economy is poor
The rich pay the VAST majority of taxes. Increasing disposable income will help stimulate the economy. This is econ 101 stuff, you have nothing to back your statements about "rich people don't spend their money". That is totally absurd. How do they buy those oversized houses and expensive cars? Magic?
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
I never cease to be amazed at how people in US firmly believe in the propaganda from official media outlets. They don't have immunity for it and they will learn it in the hard way as we did. Anyway.
Forget human rights crap. US never cared about them when it was against their interests.
Proven amounts of oil are shrinking everywhere in the world except Iraq and Saudi and these countries will account for 50% of world oil reserves during nearest decades. It's well-known fact, but you ignore obvious facts.
- First, US worked hard to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait. Note that everything started when Kuwait started draining neighbor Iraq fields and US signalled that Iraq can handle that situation (they were loosing serious money) with military force. The rest is known, but note that previously independed Kuwait is now US colony after war. If you want to force them to do something, you can order US troops who can swiftly deal with stubborn official and his loyal forces. Today we ignore that fact that US occupied Kuwait, turned it into the colony that can't have its own will and now Kuwait is under almost direct US rule. If things get tough Kuwaits oil will go directly to US at no cost except troops upkeep.
- But at that time it was impossible to invade Iraq because UN won't allow it. Now they are used to US driving its forces arond the globe, kurds are prepared for rebellion and US can split Iraq, taking oil fields and leave everything else to afghan-like chaos.
- Then comes Saudi. Remember that most terrorists at 9/11 were Saudis? It will take some heavy propaganda, but their country will be invaded by US soon -- may be 10 or 20 years.
- Then... as oil production becomes too energy consuming to be profitable humanity will have to find alternative energy source. The only one alternative viable power source is nuclear and US can't allow other countries rely on it because once it becomes common energy source you won't be able to control ALL reactors and other countries will start getting nuclear arms and thus immune to things that are going in Iraq (some lousy rockets without much brains but with simple nuclear charges will wipe all your carriers and bases and no sane neighbor country will allow you to build bases anymore on their territory and let carriers visit their waters). Thus whole world crisis is needed where other countries will suffer enough to be unable to build nuclear plants. Remaining plants could be bombed as Israeli did with Iraq plant, that's why such huge money are dumped into stealth bombers.
- When oil supply start going down humanity will have "methane pause", there are a lot of methane available (but not much), and currently about 93% of methane fields are in Russia. That's why I will go and vote even for communists or facists if they support upkeeping serious amounts of nuclear weapons able to wipe US. It's the only way to keep US at the bay, because as soon as they feel able to shoot down most our missiles and withstand nuclear blasts from these who come through new missle shield they WILL attack. Eh? You start saying something about human rights? Well, when Khasavurt accord established slavery regime in Chechnya with US help HALF OF MILLION russians were expelled, many thousands were killed. This fact got ZERO attention in US. Compare that with chechen refugees who got featured everywhere. Compare that with expelled Albanians (most of whom were in Kosovo because they sneaked there some decades before) -- they were useful. That's why I will support government that cares about MY nation and not abstract "human rights" which get bent at US will.
We as human race have to assemble and disarm US before they bring down civilisation.Well, I exaggregated a little. But this is where real interests lie. Governments may be different, be it "democracy", dictatorship, republic or something else, but geopolitical interests remains the same, no matter who acts as face of the country. It even doesn't matter what he says. Look who gets the profit.