Slashdot Mirror
How The CIA Duped The Soviets' Line X Network
sundling writes "There are interesting articles here(1) and here(2)
on software espionage against the Soviets.
In the Ronald Reagan era, a Soviet spy network (Line X Network) was looking to steal software to run oil pipelines. The CIA found out what they were trying to steal and fed them bogus versions. This is of course not the only time the CIA has done this.
... An article on the ethics of programming mentions this very topic and the moral implications." Update: 03/02 09:22 GMT by T : Oops -- this is a dupe.
If you look at this link, you'll find that, "In its espionage role, the KGB was mostly reliant on human intelligence, unlike their western counterparts, who relied far more on imagery intelligence (IMINT) and signals intelligence."
Bottom line is, the CIA has always had the edge in technology, but the KGB still had an advantage in human intelligence. They had far better human recruitment than the CIA ever did. (And for those who really follow this stuff, you probably already know that human intelligence is one thing that is very sorely lacking in our war on terror today.)
I'm in the US submarine force and I'll just suggest that the US is pretty good at getting a job done when (1) they want it done and when (2) the doors are closed to the public.
You forgot (3) Having plenty of guys like you to do the dirty work. Good on ya!
From the article:
including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural-gas pipeline
I find this very hard to believe. *If* you actually made a system so fragile, that explosions could be triggered by software, would you install software you stole from the enemy on that system?
Besides, if it was indeed possible to trigger an explosion, it had to be very proprietary code. Didn't the russians wonder why code they stole from the enemy would run on their own computers?
I'm just wondering, not trying to say that this might not be exactly what happened.
... that to protect us from gangs and thugs and criminals, we have to employ gangs and thugs and criminals.
And don't just say "because, thats the way it is".
Whenever I hear about tactics like this from the very government that is supposed to represent 'higher values', I'm reminded that government is The Perfect Con.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Yes, am I supposed to act surprised?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I have the feeling that someone is trying to feed us a bogus story. I doubt there is a way to determine if any of this has actually happened.
Looks like it is tech that has won.
....but we all know how US intelligence brilliantly prevented the 9/11 strikes with its all tech, no human intellignece approach. It seems to me that US intelligence will have to do some rethinking on the subject of doing completely without human intel sources. If 9/11 and the whole Iraqi WMD mess have proven anything it is firstly, that satilites and other spytechnology no matter how advanced will never completely replace the humble human traitor and secondly that no matter how good you are at running high tech spy gear it does not qualify your to run human spies. That is a very special skill and hard to learn. The CIA cold do worse than to take a leaf out of the books of the KGB when it comes to recruiting human spies, it is a skill the CIA has all but lost.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Perhaps the CIA fear that ultimate blame for failures in intelligence before 9/11 will be scapegoated onto them, and they are trying to engage in a little proactive image management.
strange, huh?
You're the one full of it. As the NYT article states "Farewell stayed secret because the blast in June 1982, estimated at three kilotons, took place in the Siberian wilderness, with no casualties known."
1982 != 1989
The latest Slashdot meme.
Why else would the Supreme Court allow him to kidnap and hold foreign nationals indefinitely in Cuba in direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of our constituion, on the grounds that it doesn't apply to people unless they're a citizen of this country (And sometimes not even then.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Governments need to decide whether they want to be trusted. If they want trust, then they should avoid any hint of sneakiness.
The U.S. government secretly overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran, President Mossadegh. That started a chain of events that eventually continued with retaliation: The destruction of the World Trade Center.
Osama bin Laden cannot be effective in being violent if he does not have support. He is far less likely to have support for his violent schemes if people generally trust the U.S. government.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since the Second World War. That has lowered the level of trust. Those who live in countries that have been bombed do not always think that the violence was "justified".
Old idea: "You shall not kill." New clauses: a) Unless you need to create a distraction to further your political purposes, b) Unless you think it would help you be reelected. c) Except if you fear something that someone might do in the future. d) Except if you want the oil profits. e) Except if some of the people in the other country think that killing some of them and destroying some of their property is an excellent goal.
The US had not declared war against the USSR, yet commited acts of sabotage and assassination against Russian targets. Doesn't that make the CIA and the US regiem terrorists?
Way to "think outside the box" and see the Cold War for what it really was: unilateral aggression by the USA and CIA against the poor, defenseless USSR and KGB! Seriously, it's one thing when you're talking about the USA bullying some third world country, but comparing that to the Cold War is apples and oranges (and a cheap attempt to score some anti-American karma points). And if you want to know which of these two formerly-equally-matched superpowers was the real terrorist regime, put it this way: there wasn't exactly a flood of Americans expatriating to Moscow to flee CIA gulags.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Dresden. Hiroshima. Sudan. If you need any more examples of the US and it's allies targetting civilians if they believe it's justified then simply check out Chomsky:
London, Paris, Stalingrad. Look at what the Japanese did in China. Before that the Romans, the Huns, Napoleon, every British King VS the Scotts - That is just the way that war used to work.
In fact if you look at the Palestinians against the Jews (and the Jews against the Palestinians), Haiti, El Salvador, Somalia, Bosnia - it still seems to work that way in most places.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
Not to mention that they had the skills to build that complex system yet they were incapable of writing the software for the controller???
Yeap, it makes sense because Soviet programmers are incompetent and American programmers are the shiat.
This smells propaganda and nationalism to me, but unfortunately some people will buy it.
Ethics are a professional issue.
Engineers, Doctors, Priests, Teachers and Lawyers all have ethical standards.
Software developers and contractors should also, at least they could have some liability.
As to where to draw the line, ethically that is a question for philosophers, legally it belongs to lawmakers and the courts.
My view is that feeding bad code is just an attack, and of a similar ethical stance to a bomb or similar acts. Making the bad code would be the same as making the bomb. Making shoddy code would be the same as a shoddy bookshelf.
Thats all real nice of you to kick around bullshit but the explosion being talked about occured in the Summer of 1982.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
yea, because as history has shown us, humans are by default an extremely trusting species, they would never do under-handed, sneaky, or other-wise shady actions unto each other, expecialy not their friends.... no... this "un" trustfullness is the work of... the russians!!
Governments need to decide whether they want to be trusted. If they want trust, then they should avoid any hint of sneakiness.
Trust cannot be ascertained by "not" being sneaky. Trust is for the most part about image and public knowledge, look at how any country or organization is viewed and youll see that your trust comes straight down to how people around you feel about that company/country, and what youve "heard" about them... which leads STRAIGHT into dis/mis-information. For 50 years the US and the USSR have been writing propraganda manipulating the image of the opposing super-power to look as grotesque and evil as possible within the tolerence of their respective populaces. If one friend tells you coca-cola sucks, you might try it anyway, but if 20 friends say they "heard" it sucked... you wont touch it.
The U.S. government secretly overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran, President Mossadegh. That started a chain of events that eventually continued with retaliation: The destruction of the World Trade Center.
Defending the actions of any of the world players (US, former USSR, china, France, UK, india, etc...) is an act in futility, every one of them has been acting in their best intrests for years... hell.. hundreds of years. Even the smaller countries without much power have been (iraq, syria, lebanon, israel, libya, cuba, etc..). It is the legacy of man to do so, its the same legacy that prompts us to form companies, and to compete against rivals in our industries... which causes some companies to "cross the line" with corporate espianage... but bottom line... the only point that youve "gone too far" is when you've broken an arbitrary law. I dont condone these actions... but if humans were "trusting" by nature... we wouldnt need laws.
Osama bin Laden cannot be effective in being violent if he does not have support. He is far less likely to have support for his violent schemes if people generally trust the U.S. government.
This is Partialy True, without a moral ground-swell of a great and fearsome foe who is out to "get you"... osama wouldnt have the human resources to draw upon. This is an old tactic we have used along with any other war machine. Osama makes us look bad by pointing at our actions, and HIS OWN bombings... and saying "look what those americans cause by being here". He scapegoats us for all the ills in the middle-east, some of it our doing, and much of it not. Effectivly creating hatred for us amongst a people who dont know our populace. The US has made a regular routine out of demonifying our "enemies"... weve made china and russia look evil for long terms of time, we made fidel look like a monster, and osama out to be nothing more than a rabid american hating killer when he's really a freedom-fighter we trained.... provided freedom means no communism.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since the Second World War. That has lowered the level of trust. Those who live in countries that have been bombed do not always think that the violence was "justified".
I shudder to think how many countries might have been A-bombed had we not taken some of the actions we did. Without a "super-power" or a couple of balenced super-powers in the world, we would have seen many horrendous wars do a lot more damage. Order at the edge of a sword isnt to be applauded, but it better than mayhem and the chaos that comes from a power vacum.
Old idea: "You shall not kill." New clauses: a) Unless you need to create a distraction to further your political purposes, b) Unless you think it would help you be reelected. c) Except if you fear something that someone might do in the f
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Actually the US committed no acts of any kind against the USSR in this particular case. They made some intentionally buggy software which was STOLEN by SPIES. A Soviet act of aggression was used in a passive way to entrap them. It was sneaky and nasty but I don't think it could be considered an act of war by any interpretation of international law.
I must have missed the part of the story that mentioned an assassination.
Also, while the term "terrorism" is fairly loose it does have SOME meaning. Terrorism is the use of violence to create fear in a population in order to intimidate or coerce a society or government. In this case the violence was rather passive (we passively let the soviets steal malware) The "sabotage" was not intended to cause fear in the general population or even among the leadership aside from a fear that stolen technology may be booby-trapped.